Delhi District Court
Smt. Smita Dutta vs . Pooja Sharma on 19 December, 2014
1
Smt. Smita Dutta Vs. Pooja Sharma
S-162/14
19.12.2014
Present : None.
Matter was posted for orders.
Arguments were heard earlier.
Vide this order I shall adjudicate on the aspect as to
whether in view of the admissions made in the pleadings/material
available on record whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree
straightway u/O 12 Rule 6 CPC. Qua this aspect I may also note that
parties were given due notice vide order dt. 19.11.2014.
Relevant facts required for adjudication on the said aspect
are culled out as under:-
Plaintiff's claim is that she had let out the suit property i.e .
property bearing No. 225, Ground Floor, Pocket C-1, Sector-16, Rohini,
Delhi to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.5,700/- per month and rent
agreement was executed on 24.01.2014 which was duly registered
before Sub Registrar VI, Delhi and in pursuance whereof verification of
the tenant/defendant was carried out. The tenancy was for a fixed period
of 11 months only. Defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent and
had not paid the rent for the month of April. This default caused the
plaintiff to terminate the lease during the currency itself vide a legal
notice dt. 12.05.2014. This notice was duly replied by the defendant,
however, the plaintiff does not want to keep the defendant as a tenant
any more and as such the present suit has been preferred praying
therein for a decree of possession, mesne profits and arrears of rent (I
had quoted facts in brief for the reason that I am only to adjudge the
2
entitlement of plaintiff in respect of relief of possession u/o 12 Rule 6
CPC.
Defendant's version on the other hand is that she was
regular in payment of rent and there was no default on her part. The suit
has been solely filed to harass her. She admits the execution of lease
deed and the receipt of the legal notice. However, she contends that the
advance rent alongwith security amount of Rs.10,000/- was given to the
property dealer at the time of inception of the tenancy. The said property
dealer namely Vijay Kumar Gupta used to receive the rent on behalf of
plaintiff and advance rent was given to him for which no rent receipt was
being issued. It was specifically denied that defendant was in arrears of
rent in respect of the rent for the period of April, 2014. It was contended
that the defendant had paid the rent to Vijay Kumar Gupta in the last
week of April, 2014 but he may have given the same belatedly.
Dismissal of the suit was sought for.
In a suit for ejectment three aspects which have to be
proved on record/apparently decipherable for passing a decree u/o 12
Rule 6 CPC straightaway are as under:-
i. The relationship of landlord and tenant inter se.
ii. The suit property is not covered under Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 either on account of non-operation of the said Act on
account of inapplicability over the area i.e. DRC Act is not notified
or most commonly i.e. rent being more than Rs.5700/- per month.
iii. The tenancy has been validly terminated by way of a legal notice
u/s 106 T.P. Act; by efflux of time or by filing a suit for
possession/ejectment whereby the intent of the landlord becomes
clear i.e. to seek back the possession of the suit premises
3
whereby the summons of the suit can be treated as a legal notice
to quit.
In so far as point No. ii is concerned, the rate of rent was
Rs.5700/- per month, hence, the suit property is outside the purview of
DRC Act. The relationship of landlord and tenant is also not disputed.
The point in controversy is as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek
back the recovery of possession of the premises during the subsistence
of the lease deed/as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed
whether the defendant had defaulted in her obligations warranting
termination of the lease.
Now to determine the said aspect one has to refer to the
terms and conditions of the lease deed. The tenancy was for a period of
11 months. Now the tenancy commenced w.e.f. 21.01.2014 and would
have ended on 20.12.2014. Today is 19.12.2014 and the tenancy would
have determined by efflux of time tomorrow. Plaintiff contends that she is
not agreeable for retaining the defendant as tenant. Thus, to my mind, it
hardly would have made any difference to adjourn the case awaiting the
tenancy to end.
The relevant clause is clause No. 12 i.e. upon default in
payment of rent the lessor shall have a right to terminate the lease deed
irrespective of the remaining term of the lease deed. It is to be seen as
to whether this clause has been triggered or not.
The contention of the plaintiff qua this aspect is that the
rent was not given to her/tendered to her. This contention is sought to be
met by the assertion that rent was given to Vijay Kumar Gupta who was
the AR of the plaintiff. Now rent to the authorised representative can
only be once it is proved on record/apparent that he was indeed
4
authorised to act as a representative. Qua that aspect there is
absolutely nothing on record. Vijay Kumar Gupta is only a witness to the
execution of the agreement/lease deed. Even if I assume for the sake of
argument that the defendant trusted Vijay Kumar Gupta and handed
over the rent to him then she should have insisted for a rent receipt or
paid the rent through any instrument. Same has not been done.
Difference between the rights and obligations in respect of the AR of the
plaintiff have been succinctly brought in the lease deed itself in as much
as in clause No. 12 there is no reference to the authorised
representative i.e. any third person entitled to receive the rent. There is
no ambiguity in the agreement that the rent had to be paid to the lessor
or tendered to him. Whereas in clause No. 13 the word 'Authorised
representative' is there who is only empowered to visit the suit property
and that too after obtaining prior appointment from the lessee for the
purposes of inspection only.
Further the exchange of legal notices inter se dt.
12.05.2014 and the reply of the same dt. 28.05.2014 reveal that the
defendant claims to have paid the rent to Vijay Kumar Gupta for the
month of April, 2014. The said amount was paid in the last week of April,
2014. It is also stated in the said reply notice that the rent for the month
of June, 2014 was also paid in advance to Vijay Kumar Gupta. The rent
was paid in cash. This reply notice further states that the rent for the
period of 24.06.2014 to 23.07.2014 however, shall not be paid to Vijay
Kumar Gupta without issuance of receipt. Later on it is in the written
statement it is stated that defendant paid rent directly to the plaintiff but
plaintiff also did not issue any receipt. It is further claimed that till date
the rent has been regularly paid. This written statement was filed on
5
19.11.2014. This story of the defendant that she paid rent to Vijay
Kumar Gupta and even thereafter to the plaintiff without insisting for any
receipt is without any legs to stand on. Once the matter has reached to
the stage where parties exchanged legal notices it ip so facto means that
they intend to take this aspect further i.e. a litigation is in the offings and
in such a situation, the contention of the defendant paying the rent
without any receipt is per se a false and specious plea.
Thus, straightaway as per clause 12 of the Lease Deed the
plaintiff is entitled to terminate the tenancy. There has been consistent
defaults and the defaults have not been condoned by the plaintiff.
Further, no tenant without payment of rent can continue to be in
possession as it frustrate the very basic purpose of the lease deed itself
i.e. the plaintiff should enjoy the usufruct of the property by way of
realizing the rent.
That being the situation, the plaintiff is entitled to determine
the tenancy. Further there is another clause i.e. clause 10 of the lease
deed which gives right to the plaintiff/lessor to get the possession by
serving one months' notice. Similar clause also is available to the tenant.
Under the said clause, plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession
without assigning any reason. The suit has been filed after one month of
the service of legal notice dt. 12.05.2014.
That being the situation, there is no defence available with
the defendant to resist a decree of possession u/o 12 Rule 6 CPC or to
put the case for trial. Decree of possession is passed in respect of the
suit property i.e. property bearing No. 225, Ground Floor, Pocket C-1,
Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi and more prominently shown in site plan Mark X
and initialed by me.
6
Pleadings are complete. On the basis of pleadings of the
parties, following issues are framed:-
1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of Rs.23,500/- on account of arrears of rent alongwith interest? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
3. Whether the suit is without any cause of action? OPD
4. Relief.
Put up for PE on 19.03.2015. Advance copy of affidavit of witnesses by be supplied ten days prior to next date of hearing to the other party.
(SUMIT DASS) SCJ-cum-RC (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi/19.12.2014.
7 8