Delhi High Court
Smt. Radha Lal vs M/S. Jessop & Company on 5 August, 1992
Equivalent citations: AIR1992DELHI331, 1992RLR432A, AIR 1992 DELHI 331
ORDER
1. In this suit filed by Smt. Radha Lal for possession and mesne profits regarding property No. 8, Golf Links, New Delhi against M/s. Jessop & Co. defendant herein, an application being I.A. 1583/92 was filed by the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151, CPC with the request that a decree for possession may be passed in view of the admission made by the defendant in the written statement.
2. The facts giving rise to this suit are that the ground floor of property No.8, Golf Links, New Delhi was let out to the defendant company on or about 1st May, 1969 by the husband of the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 3000,/- which was increased to Rs. 7000/-w.e.f. January 1984. After the death of the original owner landlord the plaintiff started receiving the rent of these premises. After amendment of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 by the Amendment Act of 1988, as per Section 3C of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act were not made applicable to those premises, whether residential or not, if the monthly rent exceeded Rs. 3500/-. On the basis of this agreement in the Delhi Rent Control Act, this suit has been filed for possession.
3. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement pleading, inter alia, that the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties. After the death of Krishan Lal, the original owner, who died intestate, besides the plaintiff his son Nandan Lal and daughter Smt. Anuradha Singh became co-owners and they have not been made parties to this suit. The termination of tenancy by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has also been denied spited. The ownership of the plaintiff has also been denied. The factum and validity of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act dated 8-2-1989 has also been challenged.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff applicant argued that the receipt of the not Ice sent under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has not been denied. The relationship of landlord and tenant has also been admitted and the defendant has admitted the month, rent of Rs. 7000/-. According to the learned counsel in view of the admission of these three facts, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession as the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act are not applicable in the present case in view of the provisions of Section 3C of the Delhi Rent Control Act as amended.
5. I do not agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant /plaintiff.
6. When the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act are not applicable in this case in view of Section 3(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as amended, this suit for possession can only succeed on the strength of the title of the plaintiff. A person may be a landlord but not necessarily an owner. In this case, admittedly this property belonged to Shri Krishan Lal, who had let out the same to the defend ant as far back as on 1st May 1969. He left three legal heirs, namely, his widow (plaintiff herein), his son Nandan Lal and daughter Anuradha Singh. The defendant in the written statement has stated that the plaint does. not disclose any document of ownership of the plaintiff inasmuch as after the death of Krishan Lal the said property devolved on the plaintiff, his son and his daughter who became joint owners of the property. The defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff to the suit property and this fact needs proof. It has also been denied that the tenancy was validly terminated by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The factum and validity of notice-dated 8-2-89 has been challenged. All these facts need investigation. It cannot be said that the defendants have admitted the contents of the plaint and straightway a decree of possession can be passed as claimed by the plaintiff-applicant. Moreover, it is admitted fact that the Supreme Court has stayed drawing of decree in this suit by its order-dated 9-7-1992.
7. In view of the above circumstances, this application under Order 12, Rule 6, CPC is dismissed.
8. Pleadings in this case are complete. The parties are directed to file document. The case be listed before the Deputy Registrar for admission! Denial on 12-10-1992.
9. Application dismissed.