Delhi District Court
Smt. Harbans Rani vs Mr. Ravinder Nath Lau on 13 March, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM CHAUDHARY, ADJ05, SAKET COURT, NEW
DELHI
CS No. 06/2012
IN THE MATTER OF
1 Smt. Harbans Rani
W/o Late Sh. Madan Lal Sharma
Through her legal heirs:
1 (a) Sh. Sudhir Chander
S/o Late Sh. Madan Lal Sharma
1 (b) Sh. Anil Chander Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Madan Lal Sharma
Both resident of:
House No. B6/51, Ground Floor
Safdarjung, Enclave, New Delhi.
1 (c) Smt. Anita
D/o Late Sh. Madan Lal Sharma
R/o 1252, Laxmi Bai Nagar
New Delhi110023
1 (d) Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Madan Lal Sharma
R/o House No. 417, Sector47
NOIDA, UP.
2 Sh. Sudhir Chander
S/o Late Sh. Madan Lal Sharma
3 Mrs. Uma Sharma
W/o Sh. Sudhir Chander
4 Ms. Neha Sharma
D/o Sh. Sudhir Chander
Appellants 2 to 4 are resident of:
House No. B6/51, Ground Floor
Safdarjung, Enclave, New Delhi. .........Appellants
VERSUS
Mr. Ravinder Nath Lau
S/o Late Sh. J.N Lau
R/o H.No. B6/51, First Floor
Safdarjung, Enclave, New Delhi. ........Respondent
CS No. 57/2012
2
ORDER
1. Vide this order I proceed to dispose off the applications moved by the appellants under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC.
2. The averments made are that the appellants filed the present appeal against impugned judgment and decree dated 24.08.2012 whereby the ld. trial court held that the suit of the plaintiff was not hit by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and passed a decree of possession of the suit property in favour of the respondent/plaintiff against the appellants/defendants.
3. It is further submitted that respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for possession, damages and mesne profits on the averment the tenancy of father of appellants was terminated by legal notice dated 02.06.1980 and despite service of legal notice appellants did not hand over the possession of the suit premises to the respondent/plaintiff. It is further averred that it was a case of the respondent/plaintiff himself that cause of action to file a suit arose on the basis of legal notice dated 02.06.1980 but the suit was instituted in the year 2004 as such it was barred by time having been filed 15 years after the termination of tenancy.
4. It is further averred that respondent created a new tenancy in the favour of appellants vide separate arrangement at the rate of rent of Rs. 660/ per month but appellant could not produce the rent receipts during trial despite due diligence as such the said fact could not be adjudicated during trial. It is further alleged that the said documents are very crucial for deciding the matter in controversy between the parties and for deciding the appeal. It is also averred that the suit was bared by limitation and the legal notice could not be looked into as it was unsigned. It is further alleged that the aforesaid document is necessary and important and great prejudice shall be caused to CS No. 57/2012 3 the appellant in case he is not allowed to incorporate the facts as herein above stated. It is prayed that appellant may be allowed to amend the appeal and lead additional evidence.
5. The application has been opposed by respondent on the ground that no plea was taken in the written statement that the suit is barred by limitation. It was further alleged by Ld. Counsel for respondent that the appellants were unauthorized occupants of the suit premises and were given notice to vacate the same. It was further alleged that the tenancy of the tenant Madan Lal was terminated vide legal notice in June 78, thereafter, he become a statutory tenant and on the death of Madan Lal his wife alone become a tenant for a limited period but she left the suit premises in the use and occupation of the appellants. It was further alleged that the respondent had given notice to the appellants to vacate the suit premises and to pay the damages for the unauthorized use and occupation of the same.
6. It was also alleged that there was no written rent deed. It was also submitted that Appellants was given due opportunity to lead additional evidence by the Ld. trial Court. The Ld. Counsel for respondent also alleged that the tenancy was month to month commencing from the first day of each Calender month and ending on the last day of the said month and was terminated by giving a notice as provided under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act.
7. As per the Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act read with Section 17 (1) d of the Registration Act it is mandatory that there must be a registered lease deed for a lease from year to year or exceeding one year and in the absence of the same, tenancy would be treated as month to month which can be determined by giving a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. In the present case, there is no registered lease deed, creating a new tenancy.
8. The contention of the ld. counsel for the appellant that the new tenancy CS No. 57/2012 4 was created between the parties, whereby respondent let out the suit property at the rate of rent @Rs. 600/ per month and said rent receipt could not be produced by the appellant in the Trial Court, despite due diligence, is meritless in view of the above legal position. There is no provision either in the Transfer of Property Act the Indian Registration Act or Stamp Act for renewal of the tenancy on the basis of rent receipts, it is subject to the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and other statutes. Therefore, appellant cannot derive any right or benefit by placing on record and proving the alleged rent receipt, as a new tenancy could not have been created by the rent receipts.
9. For the foregoing reason, I am of the view that the amendments sought to be incorporated and additional evidence to be lead on the said fact would not have any bearing on the merits of the appeal/case. Applications, are accordingly dismissed.
10. To come up for arguments on the appeal on 28.03.2013.
Announced in the (POONAM CHAUDHARY)
open Court today on 13.03.2013 ADJ05, SAKET COURT,
NEW DELHI
CS No. 57/2012