Delhi High Court
Variety (Agents) Pvt. Limited vs Brig. Jagdev Singh (Retd.) & Another on 22 May, 1998
Author: Arun Kumar
Bench: Arun Kumar, M.S.A. Siddiqui
ORDER Arun Kumar, J.
1. The plaintiffs who are respondents herein filed the present suit for recovery of possession and damages on 10th September, 1991 against the appellant with respect to flat No.206, Sethi Bhawan, 7, Rajendra Place, New Delhi. The lease initially started in the year 1975 for a period of three years which was renewed in 1978 for a further period of three years upto 1981. However, the appellant continued to be in occupation of the premises as a tenant. The rent was fixed at Rs.3,325/- per month with effect from 1st January, 1987. In view of the amendment of the Delhi Rent Control Act in 1988, the landlords became entitled to further enhancement of rent by virtue of provisions of Section 6A of the Act. According to the respondents/plaintiffs, they became entitled to this revision of rent by 10% w.e.f 1st January, 1990. For this purpose vide letter dated 8th June, 1990 addressed to the appellant, the landlords expressed their intention regarding increase of rent. The tenant replied to that notice refusing to increase the rent. In the reply the appellant has specifically referred to the letter of the plaintiffs/respondents dated 8th June, 1990. This we are mentioning in view of the fact that there is some dispute about its admissibility in evidence. A copy of the letter dated 8th June, 1990 has been placed by the plaintiffs on record. However, the reply of the tenant to this letter is not in dispute and the same stands duly exhibited. Thereafter the plaintiffs/respondents served a legal notice dated 27th November, 1990 on the tenant. This is a composite notice by which the existing rent of Rs.3,325/- per month is sought to be enhanced after the expiry of 30 days of the said notice. The notice also terminates the tenancy of the appellant with the end of the month of December, i.e., on 31st December, 1990. The present suit was filed in September 1991.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised only one point to challenge the impugned judgment of the trial court. The argument is that the enhancement of rent which takes the case out of the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act because the rent goes beyond the figure of Rs.3,500/- per month, came into effect only from 1st January, 1991 in view of the notice of enhancement of rent dated 27th November, 1990. However, according to the learned counsel, the tenancy stood terminated with the end of 31st December, 1990. Therefore, the enhanced rent which takes the case beyond the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act never became effective. The appellant ceased to be a tenant before the enhancement of rent became effective. On this ground it is submitted that the suit for recovery of possession was not maintainable. It was further submitted that the alleged letter dated 8th June, 1990 from the landlord to the tenant could not be relied upon because its copy had not been duly proved in evidence. This would leave only the notice dated 27th November, 1990 for purposes of enhancement of rent as well as for termination of tenancy.
3. We have considered the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellant. The tenant's reply to the letter dated 8th June, 1990 itself makes the intention of the landlord to increase the rent by 10% clear. There is a clear rejection of the request of the landlords to increase the rent by 10% in the said reply. The last enhancement of rent was w.e.f. 1st January, 1987. Therefore, as per the amended provisions of the Act, further enhancement of rent by 10% had become due on 1st January, 1990. The letter regarding enhancement was given by the landlords on 8th June, 1990. This letter would be sufficient for purposes of the provisions of Section 6A and 8 of the Act to notify increase of rent by 10%. Besides this the notice dated 27th November, 1990 admittedly received by the tenant further notifies to the tenant the intention of the landlords to enhance the rent by 10% as per the right given by the Statute. The ingenious argument on behalf of the appellant to save the situation does not appear to be in accordance with law. The notice dated 27th November, 1990 is a document duly proved in evidence. It terminates the tenancy of the appellant with the end of the month of December 1990. Thereafter the possession of the appellant of the suit premises will be that of a tenant holding over. Termination of tenancy by a notice in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is necessary. It gives a right to the landlords to seek their remedy for getting possession from such a tenant by approaching a court of law. Without termination of tenancy, the landlord cannot approach the court. In this behalf a reference can be made to Section 7(xi)(cc) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 which contains provision regarding payment of court fee in a suit for possession by a landlord against a tenant. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, the said provision will become redundant and the landlord may have to file a suit on the basis of market value of the property of which possession is sought.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that by enhancing the rent, the landlords were exercising their statutory right under Section 6A of the Delhi Rent Control Act. By virtue of exercise of that right, the monthly rent went beyond Rs.3,500/- per month which entitled the landlords to seek their remedy by way of the present suit. In this connection, the learned counsel pointed out that even after termination of tenancy after the tenant does not hand over possession of the premises as required under the notice, his liability towards the landlord continues. The landlord may ask for rent at a higher rate but that will depend on the court whether the higher rate is allowed or not. There can be no dispute about the liability to continue to pay the agreed rate of rent or the rent as enhanced by virtue of the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
5. It is interesting to note that the landlords in the present case had earlier filed an eviction petition under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act where the tenant took the objection that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction in view of the fact that the rent was more than Rs.3,500/- per month and it was on account of this objection that the said eviction suit was dismissed as not maintainable. The appellant is thus blowing hot and cold.
6. We find no merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. The result is that this appeal fails and is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their respective costs.