Delhi District Court
Pran Nath Mehta vs M/S Cri Limited on 29 May, 2025
BEFORE THE COURT OF SH. SURINDER S. RATHI, DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMM.)-11 CENTRAL, THC, DELHI
CS Comm. No.3996/2021
1.Pran Nath Mehta S/o late R.N. Mehta A-20, Anand Niketan, New Delhi
2. Ram Меhta S/o late Ashwani Kumar Mehta
3. Raj Меhta S/o late Ashwani Kumar Mehta
4. Vimal Mehta S/o late Ashwani Kumar Mehta
5. Rani Wesley D/o late Ashwani Kumar Mehta No.2 to 5 C/o:
A-20, Anand Niketan, New Delhi .............Plaintiff Vs. M/s CRI Limited 2E/26 Swami Ram Tirath Nagar Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055 ............Defendant Date of Institution : 08.10.2021 Date of Final Arguments : 29.05.2025 Date of Judgment : 29.05.2025 Decision : Decreed Judgment
1. This suit is filed by plaintiff/landlord against the defendant/tenant for possession of the tenanted suit property i.e. 1st and 2nd floor of property no. 2E/26, Swami Ram Tirth Nagar, Jhandewalan as also for recovery of Rs.26,08,995/- alongwith 15% interest and reliefs of permanent and CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 1 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited mandatory injunction. Surprisingly, no relief of pendente lite mesne profit/occupation charge or similar relief till actual handing over of possession has been prayed for.
Case of the Plaintiff
2. Case of the plaintiff as per amended plaint and the documents filed is that the original landlady/owner of the suit property was Late Smt. Rajrani Mehta, mother of plaintiff no. 1 and grandmother of plaintiff no. 2 to 5 who happens to be children of late Sh. Ashwani Kumar Mehta, another son of Smt. Rajrani Mehta. These 5 co-plaintiffs are said to have inherited the title as well as landlordship of the suit property by virtue of Will dated 14.05.1998 and Codicil dated 21.07.2002.
3. Defendant is said to be a duly incorporated public limited company.
Plaintiff has sued the defendant company at the tenanted suit address and not at the registered address as mandated under Order 29 Rule 2 CPC. It is pleaded that in the year 1971 Late Smt. Rajrani Mehta inducted "M/s National Cash Registered." as a tenant. Although plaint is silent but Court is apprised that it was an oral tenancy. The plaint is also silent about the legal status of "M/s National Cash Registered" as to whether it is proprietorship concern or partnership firm or any other fiction of law.
4. It is pleaded that subsequently the tenancy was changed in the name of defendant company but neither any date, month or year of the same is mentioned nor any document is filed in this regard. It is claimed that defendant did not pay rent without specifying the monthly rent or the period up to which the rent was paid or the period for which the rent was not paid. It is pleaded that subsequently notice of termination of tenancy was issued on 14.12.1995 followed by filing of an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (a) (b) and (j) of Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act, 1958 on 12.05.1997 as Eviction Petition no. 406/2008 dated 12.05.2007. The said CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 2 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited petition was defended by the defendant by filing a written statement dated 24.03.1998. It is pleaded that during the pendency of the above eviction petition under DRC Act, 1958 the landlady Smt. Rajrani Mehta expired on 13.01.2003.
5. Plaintifff no. 1 is said to be power of attorney for plaintiff no. 2 to 5 vide documents dated 09.06.2003 and 05.07.2009. Subsequently, plaintiff no. 2 to 5 are shown to have executed a registered relinquishment deed dated 02.07.2021 in favour of plaintiff no. 1 and as such plaintiff no. 1 who inherited the one half share from his mother also became owner of the other half portion of the suit property. The defendant company started paying rent to the plaintiff by way of cheque.
6. The rent paid by the defendant company was Rs.2,875/- per month w.e.f. 1989 exclusive of electricity charge. The rent was subsequently increased to Rs.3,162.50/- w.e.f. 01.03.1994, however, defendant did not pay the enhanced rent despite service of letter dated 26.03.1994. On the contrary defendant company moved application under Section 26 (3) of DRC Act, 1958 on 16.08.2002 to deposit the rent before the Additional Rent Controller seeking permission for the period May 1998 to October 2005. Finally defendant paid Rs.2,58,750/- by way of three cheques. Subsequently, defendant is said to have paid rent @Rs.3,173/- for April and May 2015 by way of cheque instead of paying rent @Rs.3478.70/-.
7. It is pleaded that subsequently plaintiffs issued third notice dated 28.03.2018 under Section 6A of DRC Act, 1958 for enhancement of rent from Rs.3478.70/- to Rs.3826.62/- after completion of three years period but defendant did not pay up the increased rent w.e.f. 01.05.2018 but continued to pay rent @Rs.3478.70/-. It is pleaded that plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for recovery of Rs.22,088/- as arrears of rent on CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 3 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited 22.11.2017 as CS no. 3569 of 2017 before Ld. Civil Judge which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 19.09.2019.
8. It is pleaded that on 16.07.2019 the court of Additional Rent Controller passed the order under Section 15 (1) of DRC Act, 1958 directing the defendant to pay the arrears of increased rent alongwith interest. It was followed by passing of an order of striking off of defence of defendant on 27.08.2019. The plaintiff company stopped encashing the cheques sent by the defendant @ Rs.3,479/- per month since they were less than the enhanced amount under third notice i.e. Rs.3,826.62/-. It is pleaded that plaintiff is entitled to interest @Rs.3,826.62 w.e.f. 01.05.2018 to 31.01.2021 apart from interest @15% per annum. Legal notice was sent on 28.12.2020 to vacate the proeprty and pay damages. Plaintiff demanded mesne profit @Rs.3 lakhs per month from 01.02.2021 but the same was not complied and a reply dated 16.01.2021 was sent. Plaint carries reference of some unregistered lease of the locality to show that plaintiff is entitled to mesne profit @Rs.3 lakhs per month.
9. No Pre-Institution Mediation under Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was carried since injunction application was filed. In this backdrop, suit in hand was filed for following prayers:
Prayer:
i. To pass a decree for Possession may be passed in favour of the plaintiff no.1 against the defendant in respect of first & second floor portions of the property bearing no. 2E/26, Swami Ram Tirath Nagar, Jhandewalan, New Delhi as shown 'Red' in colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint; ii. A Joint decree for a sum of Rs. 26,08,995/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Five ) may be passed in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 5 against the defendant as per the averment made in the Plaint. iii. interest at the rate of 15% per annum may also be awarded on Rs. 26,08,995/-
(Rupees Twenty Lakhs Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Five) to the Plaintiffs against the defendant from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the aforesaid amount;
iv. To pass a decree for Permanent Injunction may be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant through their tenants/employees and person working there from parting with possession of the CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 4 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited first & second floor of the property bearing No. 2E/26, Swami Ram Tirath Nagar, Jhandewalan, New Delhi 110055 or any part thereof in the manner as shown 'Red' in the site plan annexed with the plaint to any person except to the plaintiff no.1 who is the registered owner/landlord qua the constructed property bearing no. 2E/26, Swami Ram Tirath Nagar, Jhandewalan, New Delhi 110055 competent to receive the possession of the said portions of the aforesaid property from the defendant;
v. To pass a decree for permanent injunction may be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant/Occupiers from changing the existing structure including unauthorized construction as on date of the suit premises i.e. first & second floor of the property bearing no. 2E/26, Swami Ram Tirath Nagar, Jhandewalan, New Delhi 110055 as shown 'Red' in the site plan, in any manner, vi. A decree for Mandatory Injunction may be passed thereby directing the defendant company through their employees/person working on their behalf to change the SI Pipes installed in the property in respect of the first and second floor portion of the property from the top floor to the ground floor portions of the property at their own cost and Expenses in order to save the Life of the building and also regarding the seepage of the water from second floor to the Basement floor of the aforesaid property;
vii. A decree for Mandatory Injunction may be passed thereby directing/restrain the defendant company through their employee, director and person on working of their behalf for sending the illegal rent at rate of Rs. 3,479/- per month in the name of plaintiff/Plaintiffs cheques at Rs. 3,479/- per month as rent in the name of the plaintiff/plaintiffs in respect of suit premises as the rent of the premises with affect from 01.05.2018 after the service of the third notice dated 28.03.2018 was issued and served and same was replied.
viii. Cost of the suit may also be awarded to the plaintiffs against the defendant. ix. Any other relief may be awarded to the plaintiffs seeing the facts and circum-
stances of the case against the defendant.
10.Summons of the suit was served upon the defendant on 09.12.2021 and entered appearance through Sh. Sandeep, Advocate. No WS was filed within 30 days, however, application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and another application under Order 15A CPC was filed. WS was filed on 24.02.2022.
Defendant's Case
11.Case of the defendant as per WS is that the suit deserves to be dismissed as it is devoid of merits and the matter is covered under Delhi Rent Control Act 1958. Section 50 of DRC Act, 1958 bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court in such cases. It is pleaded that the suit property in question has a rent of Rs.3,478.75/- and the defendant is depositing the same CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 5 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited before the Court of Additional Rent Controller (ARC). Objection of non- compliance of Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is also taken. It is pleaded that plaintiff has not filed appropriate Court fees. It is pleaded that the order passed by Ld. Additional Rent Controller under Section 15(1) of DRC Act have been challenged by the defendant before Rent Control Tribunal. Court is apprised that the appeal already stands dismissed.
12.The defendant was constrained to deposit the rent with the ARC since plaintiff was not accepting the same. In its reply on merits it is admitted that late Smt. Rajrani Mehta was the owner of the property and that defendant company is occupying the suit property as a tenant. It is denied that the defendant is not paying rent or that the tenancy stood terminated by the landlady vide notice dated 14.12.1995. It is contended that defendant continued to occupy the property as a statutory tenant. It is not denied that late Smt. Rajrani Mehta died on 13.01.2003 and that she is survived by plaintiffs as LRs. Execution of Power of Attorney and relinquishment deed by plaintiff no. 2 to 5 in favour of plaintiff no. 1 is not denied so is the fact that now plaintiff no. 1 is owner/landlord of the entire property. It is not denied that defendant used to pay rent by way of cross cheques, however, it is pleaded that cheques were drawn for due amount and not for lesser amounts. It is denied that plaintiff enhanced the rent from Rs.2,875/- in 1989 to Rs.3,162.50/- from 01.05.1994. It is not denied that plaintiff filed eviction petition against the defendant before the Court of ARC. It is admitted that defendant started paying rent at the enhanced rate @Rs.3,478.70/- from 01.04.2015. It is denied that the plaintiff enhanced the rent further up to Rs.3,826.62/- from 01.05.2018 onwards.
CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 6 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited
13.Defendant admits that it suffered a decree from Court of Ld. Civil Judge on 19.09.2019 and contended that an appeal against the same is subjudice. It is admitted that on 16.07.2019 Court of ARC passed a direction to pay the arrears with interest and finally on 27.08.2019 defence was struck off by the ARC. An appeal preferred against the same already stands disposed of without any relief. It is denied that defendant is liable to pay any rent for under payments. Reciept to legal notice dated 28.12.2020 is admitted which is claimed to have been replied on 16.01.2021. It is denied that defendant is liable to pay Rs.3 lakhs per month occupation charge w.e.f. 01.02.2021 to 31.07.2021. It is denied that plaitniff is entitled to reliefs of possession and recovery of Rs.26,08,995/- with 15% interest.
14.Affidavit of statement of truth filed with the WS is not as per Order 6 Rule 15A appendix I of CPC as it contains only 7 paras.
15.No affidavit of admission denial to plaintiff's documents was filed with the WS, however, it was filed subsequently in September 2022. Perusal of this affidavit shows that it is not as per Order 11 Rule 4 (2) CPC however most of the documents filed by the plaintiff have been admitted except an unrelated lease deed filed in support of the claim of mesne profit.
Replication
16.Separate replication was filed by the planitiff which is not signed on all pages. In the replication plaintiff reiterated their pleaded case and denied the contention that the suit is hit by Section 15 of DRC Act, 1958 or that the last rent payable was Rs.3,826.62/- w.e.f. 01.05.2018.
17.The Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application filed by the defendant objecting to subject jurisdiction of this Court was dismissed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 22.11.2023 concluding therein that this suit is maintainable on the basis of facts pleaded even during the pendency of eviction petition CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 7 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited before DRC. This order was challenged by the defendant before the Hon'ble High Court in CM (M) 1845/2024 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2024.
18.An application was filed under Order 15A CPC, Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, Order 12 Rule 6 CPC as well as Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC by the plaintiff seeking deposit of Rs.3 lakhs per month w.e.f. 01.02.2021 till delivery of possession of the suit property however no relief was granted citing that these issues would be dealt with during the course of trial. The other 3 applications were also dismissed. However, aggrieved by the dismissal of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC application refusing decree of possession on admission a civil revision CRP No. 365/2024 was filed which is still subjudice and there is no stay on this trial.
19.Upon completion of pleadings following issues were identified by this Court on 12.11.2024:
Issues:
i. Whether defendant is a statutory tenant under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1950? OPD ii. Whether this Court has no subject jurisdiction in terms of Section 50 of Delhi Rent control Act? OPD iii. Whether suit is liable to be rejected for non-compliance of Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015? OPD iv. Whether plaintiff no. 1 is entitled to decree of possession of tenanted suit property i.e. first and second floors of built up property i.e. 2E/26, Swami Ram Tirath Nagar, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi as shown in the site plan? OPP v. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to a joint decree of Rs.26,08,995/- alongwith interest @15% per annum? OPP vi. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant or any person acting through them from parting with the possession of the suit property to any third person? OPP vii. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction restraining changing the structure of the suit property or carrying out unauthorised construction? OPP viii.Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant tenant to change the pipes installed on the first and second floors at their own cost? OPP CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 8 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited ix. Relief.
Evidence
20.Evidence in this case was ordered to be recorded before Sh. Tanmay Garg, Advocate, Ld. LC as per protocol created by this Court under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC read with Order 15A Rule 6(l) and (o) CPC as applicable to Commercial suits for the sake of timely disposal of this case.
21.To prove their case plaintiffs examined PW1 Pran Nath Mehta. Vide affidavit Ex.PW1/A he deposed on the lines of plaint and exhibited following documents:
1. Copies of Power of Attorneys dated 9.6.2003 and 5.7.2009 are Ex-PW1/1 and PW1/2.
2. Copy of the lease Deed dated 26.2.1973 is Ex-PW1/3.
3. The original of the site plan of the property No. 2E/26, Jhandewalan Extension, Swami Ram Tirth Nagar in respect of the 1 st and 2nd floor of the property is Ex- PW1/4.
4. The copy of Eviction Petition No. 406/2008 titled as Raj Rani Mehta VS. CRI& Ors. Dated 12.05.1997, which is Ex-PW1/5.
5. The copy Written Statement filed by the defendant in the aforesaid eviction petition No. 406/2008 titled as Raj Rani Mehta Vs. CRI & Ors is Ex-PW1/6.
6. The copy of registered Will and Testament dated 14.05.1998 of Smt. Raj Rani Mehta in favour of her sons Pran Mehta and Ashwini Mehta is Ex-PW-1/7.
7. The copy of second Codicil dated 21.07.2002 signed and executed by Smt. Raj Rani Mehta are Ex-PW1/8.
8. The copy of the termination/vacation notice dated 28.12.2020 is Ex-PW1/9.
9. That the defendant company had replied to the said notice vide reply dated 16.01.2021 is Ex-PW1/10.
10. The certified copy of the Relinquishment Deed by plaintiff No. 2 to 5 in favour of plaintiff No. 1/deponent is Ex-PW-1/11.
11. The copy of the letter for increase of rent dated 26.03.1994 signed an executed by deceased Raj Rani Mehta is Ex-PW1/12.
12. The reply dated 15.04.1994 to the letter dated 26.03.1994 by defendant company is Ex-PW1/13.
13. The copy of the statement given by Sh. Pran Nath Mehta in Misc. Application No. 33 of 2002, titled as Cri Ltd. Vs Pran Nath Mehta before ARC Delhi is Ex- PW1/14.
14. The copy of Statement given by Sh. V. P. Khaitan in Misc. Application No. 33 of 2002, titled as Cri Ltd. Vs Pran Nath Mehta before ARC Delhi is Ex-PW1/15.
15. The copy of order passed by the learned ARC in Misc. Application No. 33 of 2002, titled as Cri Ltd. Vs Pran Nath Mehta before ARC Delhi is Ex-PW1/16.
16. The copy of notice dated 16.02.2015 for increase of rent u/s 6A of the DRC Act is Ex-PW1/17.
17. The reply dated 10.03.2015 to the notice dated 16.02.2015 for increase of rent u/s 6A of the DRC Act is Ex-PW1/18.
18. Copy of the third notice dated 28.03.2018 for increase of rent u/s 6A of the DRC Act is Ex-PW1/19.
CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 9 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited
19. The reply dated 26.04.2018 to the notice dated 28.03.2018 for increase of rent u/s 6A of the DRC Act is Ex-PW1/20.
20. The certified co copy of the judgement/decree dated 19.09.2019 passed by Sh.
Mayank Goyal Ld. Civil Judge, in Suit bearing no. CS 3569/2017 titled as Pran Nath Mehta Vs. CRI Ltd. is Ex-PW1/21.
21. Copy of the order passed by the Ld. ARC Delhi dated 16.07.2019 in Eviction case No. 406/2008 titled as raj Rani Mehta(deceased) through her LRs vs. CRI Ltd. is Ex-PW1/22.
22. Copy of the order dated 27.8.2019 passed by the ARC in Eviction petition No. 406/2008 titled as raj Rani Mehta (deceased) through her LRs vs. CRI Ltd for striking out the defence of the defendant is Ex. PW1/23.
23. The copy of plaintiff's notice dated 12.07.2018 is Ex. PW1/24 (Colly).
24. The copy of the defendant's reply dated 25.07.2018 to the plaintiff's notice dated 12.07.2018 is Ex. PW1/25 (Colly).
25. The copy of plaintiff's notice dated 01.08.2018 is Ex. PW1/26 (Colly).
26. The copy of the defendant's reply dated 07.08.2018 to the plaintiff's notice dated 12.07.2018 is Ex. PW1/27 (Colly).
27. Certified copy of the Registered lease Agreement dated 27.3.2018 executed by Smt. Anuradha Arora of the property bearing no. 2E/27, Jhandewalan Extension, Swami Ram Tirath Marg, New Delhi 110055 is Ex. PW1/30.
28. The copies of letters dated 31.7.2019 and 4.1.2020 sent by plaintiffs is Ex. PW1/31 & 32.
29. Copy of the application bearing No. DR. No. 713/2020 dated 22.07.2020 filed by the defendant under section 27, Delhi Rent Control Act is Ex. PW1/33.
30. The objections were filed by the objectors under section 27 (4) of the DRC act dated 07.01.2021 is Ex. PW1/34.
31. Copy of the application bearing No. DR. No. 26/2021 dated 06.01.2021 filed by the defendant under section 27, Delhi Rent Control Act for deposit of rent is Ex. PW1/35.
32. The objections were filed by the objectors under section 27 (4) of the DRC act dated 16.02.2021 is Ex. PW1/36.
33. Copies of the cheques alongwith and the letters dated 02, March, 2020 and 1 st, May, 2020 sent by the defendant company in the name of Plaintiff no. 1 Pran Nath Mehta are Ex. PW1/37 to Ex. PW1/40.
34. The photographs for the leakage and other portions of the property is Ex. PW1/41 to Ex. PW1/49.
35. The report dated 20.09.2021 submitted by the Om Singh & Associates is correct, which is Ex. PW1/51.
36. The certified copy of registered Conveyance Deed dated 15.06.2022 for freehold of the aforesaid property bearing no. 2E/26, Jhandewalan Extension, Swami Ram Tirath Nagar, New Delhi. Certified copy of the original Conveyance Deed dated 15.06.2022 is Ex. PW1/52.
37. Certified copy of the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi CM No. 1845/2024 titled as CRI Limited V/s. Pran Nath Mehta is PW1/53.
22.In his cross-examination done by Sh. Vinayak Thakur, Ld. Counsel for defendant company PW1 stated that he is B.Com Graduate and is a businessman as also a social worker. The tenancy in question is created in 1971 by his late mother. He could not disclose the rent payable in 1971 CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 10 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited but in 1989 the rent was Rs.2,875/- per month. After death of his mother he used to take care of the issues relating to the property in question. He added that the eviction petition filed before Ld. ARC under DRC Act, 1958 was withdrawn in 2021 (wrongly stated as it was withdrawn on 07.10.2024). He denied the suggestion that he pursued two simultaneous eviction petition under two different courts under two different clauses illegally. He claimed that the initial rent under the DRC Act, 1958 was enhanced @10% after every three years. He accepted that defendant used to deposit the rent with the Court of Additional Rent Controller. It is claimed that vide issuance notice the rent was enhanced to Rs.3,826.62/-. He denied the suggestion that defendant never accepted this enhanced amount. He accepted that that the initial termination notice was sent around 1997 prior to the notice dated 28.12.2020. He denied the suggestion that the monthly rent of similar property in the locality is not Rs.3-4 lakhs. He admitted that the ground floor of the property was vacated by the tenant under directions of the Court. The allegation of carrying out of unauthorised construction is said to be based on a report got prepared by private surveyor M/s Om Singh Associates but it was got prepared prior to filing of the suit. He denied the suggestion that no damage has been caused to the property. He denied the suggestion that plaintiff is not the real owner.
23.Second witness examined is PW2 Anuradha Arora. Vide affidavit Ex.PW2/A she deposed that she is landlady of an adjoining property in the locality and that vide lease deed Ex.PW1/30 she has let out the same at a monthly rent of around Rs.1.98 lakhs per month.
24.In her cross-examination she stated that the property referred to by her is a ground floor. She denied that the rental of the ground floor is much higher than the rental of the upper floors.
CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 11 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited
25.On the contrary defendant examined DW1 Shri Ram Aggarwal. Vide affidavit Ex.DW1/A he deposed on the lines of WS and exhibited following documents:
i. Copy of Power of Attorney dated 03.01.2022 is Ex DW-1/1.
ii. Copy of eviction petition bearing No. RC ARC No. 478084/2016 titled as Smt. Raj Rani Mehta (Deceased Now) Vs. CRI Limited and others dated 12.05.1997 against the defendant company and the same is already Ex-PW-1/5.
iii. Copy of application bearing No. 406/2008 titled as Smt. Raj Rani Mehta (Deceased Now) Vs. CRI Limited and others filed before the court of Shri Vinay Singhal, ARC, Delhi under section 15(1) of the DRC Act, 1958 filed by the plaintiff was initially exhibited as Ex-DW-1/2 and later de-exhibited and marked as Mark A. iv. Copy of order dated 16.07.2019 passed No. E. No. 406/2008 by Ld. ARC Shrish Aggarwal, Delhi is already Ex-PW-1/22.
v. Copy of appeals bearing No. RCT 133 of 2019 titled as Pran Nath Mehta and others Vs. CRI Limited and RCT 131 of 2019 titled as. CRI Limited Vs. Raj Rani Mehta through LRs filed before the court of Ld. DJ Cum RCT Tis Hazari, Central District, Delhi was initially exhibited as Ex-DW/1/3 and later deexhibited and marked as Mark - B. vi. Copy of orders passed in DR No. 114/2021 New No. 1111/2021, DR No. 40/2020 New No. 428/2020, DR No. 302/2019 New No. 2554/2019, DR No. 277/2019 New No. 1839/2019, DR No. 1613/2018, DR No. 37/2019 New No. 282/2019, DR No. 124/2019 New No. 736/2019, DR No. 211/2018 New No. 1243/2018, DR No. 312/2018 New No. 1975/2018, DR No. 360/2018 New No. 2316/2018, were initially exhibited as Ex-DW-1/4 (Colly) and later deexhibited and marked as Mark - C.
26.In his cross-examination done by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff Sh. P.P. Ahuja, Advocate he accepted that he has not placed any document on record to show that he is employee of the defendant. He was unaware of the terms of lease when it started. He admitted the notices issued by the plaintiff Ex.PW1/12, Ex,PW1/13, Ex.PW1/17 to Ex.PW1/20 for enhancement of rent and claimed that the defendant company did not pay the increased rent. He denied that after issuance of notice dated 28.03.2018 Ex.PW1/19 the enhanced rent stood at Rs.3,826.62/- per month. He joined the defendant in January 2022. He expressed unawareness if the prevalent rental in the area is Rs.200 per sq. feet per month. He denied that the CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 12 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited defendant company caused any damage to the property or defendant is liable to pay any penal occupation charges.
27.Second witness examined by the defendant is DW2 VP Khetan. Vide affidavit Ex.DW2/A he deposed on the lines of plaint.
28.In his cross-examination he stated that he is ex-employee of the defendant company. He stated that the name of the defendant company was changed once. He stated that in 01.12.1989 it was agreed between the parties that the monthly rent would be Rs.2,875/-. He denied that plaintiff has a right to evict the defendant company as the statutory tenancy stands terminated.
29. I have heard arguments of Sh. P.P. Ahuja, Sh. Keshav Shehgal, Sh. Vidit Garg, Ms. Ranjana Srivastava and Sh. Aryan Kumar, Ld. Counsels for plaintiff and Sh. Vinayak Thakur, Ld. Counsel for defendant. I have perused the case file carefully.
30.Now I shall dispose of individual issues framed in this case.
Issue No.1 and 2:
i. Whether defendant is a statutory tenant under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1950? OPD ii. Whether this Court has no subject jurisdiction in terms of Section 50 of Delhi Rent control Act? OPD
31.Before embaking the decision on the above two issues it would be appropriate to cull out facts admitted by both the parties in pleadings, evidence and final arguments. It is admitted case of both the sides that plaintiff is landlord of the defendant tenant company qua first and second floor of proprerty no. 2E/26, Swami Ram Tirth Nagar, Jhandewalan, Delhi. Initially, predecessor in interest of plaintiff namely Late Smt. Rajrani Mehta had in 1971 inducted M/s National Cash Regd. as a tenant orally. The said tenant firm subsequently got registered as a company M/s CRI Limited and both the parties are on the same page that M/s CRI Limited became tenant in the year 1974.
CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 13 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited
32.The last admitted rent paid by the defendant to the plaintiff was Rs.2,875/- per month exclusive of electricity charge. Admittedly, all rents were received by way of cross cheques. The original landlady Smt. Rajrani Mehta admittedly expired on 13.01.2003 and subsequently the property was inherited by plaintiff no. 1 Pran Nath Mehta and successors of her second son late Ashwani Mehta namely plaintiff no. 2 to 5. It is admitted case of the parties that subsequently upon execution of registered relinquishment deeds the title/landlordship of the suit property now stands vested solely on plaintiff no. 1 w.e.f. 02.07.2021.
33.Also admittedly, the first litigation started between the parties when the plaintiff landlord preferred Eviction Petition no. 406/2008 (originally filed on 12.05.1997). This petition sought eviction of the defendant tenant on the grounds of non-payment of rent, subletting and causing damage to the tenanted property i.e. under Section 14 (1) (a) (b) and (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This petition was finally withdrawn by the plaintiffs herein on 07.10.2024, i.e. around 3 years after filing of the suit in hand.
34.It is case of the plaintiff that previous admitted rent of the previous admitted rent of Rs.2,875/- as of December 1989 was enhanced by plaintiff by issuance of notice dated 26.03.1994 under Section 6A r/w Section 8 of DRC Act, 1958 to Rs.3,162/- per month and thereafter vide another notice dated 16.02.2015 under the above provisions the rent was enhanced to Rs.3,478/-. This enhanced rent is admittedly being deposited by the defendant tenant with Additional Rent Controller till date.
35.However, according to the plaintiff vide another such notice under Section 6A r/w Section 8 of DRC Act, 1958 dated 28.03.2018 the admitted rent of Rs.3,478/- per month now stands enhanced to Rs.3,826.62/- and as such the tenancy between the parties herein has crossed the benchmark of Rs.3500, as provided under Section 3 (c) of CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 14 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited DRC Act, 1958. Hence it is case of the plaintiff that the tenancy has come out of purview of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and is now covered under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In this regard it is admitted case of both the sides that plaintiff's notice dated 28.03.2018 was duly served upon the defendant and defendant had replied the same on 26.04.2018. Admittedly, in the reply defendant admits that the last rent between the parties was Rs.3,479/- since 01.05.2018 instead of plaintiff's claim of relevant date i.e. from 01.04.2015.
36.While opening his submissions Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 6A and Section 8 of DRC Act, 1958. For ready reference the same is reproduced hereunder:
Section 6A. Revision of rent.--
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the standard rent, or, where no standard rent is fixed under the provisions of this Act in respect of any premises, the rent agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, may be increased by ten per cent. every three years.] Section 8. Notice of increase of rent.--
(1) Where a landlord wishes to increase the rent of any premises, he shall give the tenant notice of his intention to make the increase and in so far as such increase is lawful under this Act, it shall be due and recoverable only in respect of the period of the tenancy after the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the notice is given.
(2) Every notice under sub-section (1) shall be in writing signed by or on behalf of the landlord and given in the manner provided insection 106of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882).
37.Ld. counsel for plaintiff has relied on case titled Deepak Nijhawan And Anr. Vs. RN Abrol, 2015 Latest Caselaw 9550 Del wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that:
20. A reading of Section 6A shows that, statutorily, the rent of any premises covered by the Act may be increased by 10% every three years. There are two facets of Section 6A. First- that the rent may be increased by 10%, and second
- that the said increase can take place every three years. Section 8, in effect, provides that to trigger the increase of rent in terms of Section 6A, a landlord -
who wishes to so increase the rent, is required to convey his intention to make the increase by giving a notice of his intention to the tenant. It also provides that upon service of the notice conveying his intention to increase the rent, CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 15 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited "insofar as such increase is lawful under this Act", the increased rent shall be due and recoverable in respect of the period of tenancy after the expiry of thirty days from the date on which such notice is given. Therefore, even if the landlord issues a notice conveying his intention to increase the rent: (i) in excess of what is lawful under the Act, or (ii) from a date prior to when it is lawful to so increase the rent under the Act, the increase shall take place only to the extent and from the date, that is lawful under the Act.
23. A plain reading of Section 8, in my view, does not put any fetters on the right of the landlord to issue a notice under the said provision, read with Section 6A, in advance of the date when the rent could become statutorily revisable by 10% under Section 6A of the Act. There is nothing to suggest in the said provision that if a notice is given in advance, such that the period of thirty days after the issuance of notice expires prior to the rent becoming revisable under Section 6A, such notice would not take effect from the date when the rent becomes revisable by resort to Section 6A of the Act.
24. Section 8, in essence, requires that the landlord should convey his intention to the tenant that he desires to increase the rent. The purpose of the said notice is merely to compel the tenant to start paying the increased rent in terms of Section 6A from the date it is so payable, and to the extent that it is so payable. If, the increase by 10% is due in terms of Section 6A, on the expiry of thirty days from the date when the notice is given, the tenant is bound to pay the increased rent on such expiry of thirty days. If, however, on expiry of the said period of thirty days from the date of the notice the rent is not revisable under Section 6A - because the previous revision took place less than three years ago, or the rent was fixed less than three years ago, the tenant is not bound to revise the rent on the date when the period of thirty days expires from the date of the notice. But when he already has notice of the intention of the landlord to increase the rent, he cannot ignore this communication of the intention of the landlord, and not pay the increased rent, atleast, on the date that the said increase is legally enforceable. It is for this reason that Section 8 uses the expression "... and insofar as such increase is lawful under this Act ...". What is lawful increase under the Act is the increase of 10% over the previous rent every three years........
30. Thus, the Supreme Court opined that a notice of demand issued by the landlord must be read in a commonsense way, bearing in mind how such notices are understood by ordinary people. It was the conduct of the landlord in issuing the notice - whereby he communicated his intention to seek increase of rent under Section 6A, which is relevant. An inaccuracy with regard to the amount of increase that the appellant/ landlord was entitled to, or about the date from which the said increase could be claimed, does not affect the validity of the notice, the purpose of which is only to communicate the intention of the landlord to the tenant that he demands increase of rent from the date, which is lawful under the Act.
(Emphasis Supplied)
38.The onus of above issue was placed upon the defendant. Before appreciating the submissions of Ld. Counsel for defendant it would be CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 16 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited appropriate to reproduce graphically the three notices issued under Section 6A r/w Section 8 of DRC Act,1958 and its implications as under:
1 First notice date 26.03.1994 2 Rent as on 26.03.1994 Rs.2,875 3 Rate at which Enhancement is sought 15% although only 10% is permissible 4 Enhanced rent @10% Rs.3162.50/- w.e.f. 01.05.1994 5 Notice served or not Yes 6 Whether notice replied Yes on 15.04.1994 7 Contention of defendant Notice is bad as 15% sought against permissible 10% and enhancement sought retrospectively w.e.f.01.12.1992 1 Second notice date 16.02.2015 2 Rent as on 26.03.1994 Rs.3162.50 3 Rate at which Enhancement is sought 10.00% 4 Enhanced rent @10% Rs.3478.70/- w.e.f. 01.04.2015 5 Notice served or not Yes 6 Whether notice replied Yes on 10.03.2015 7 Contention of defendant Notice is bad since earlier notice of 26.03.1994 was bad but Rs.3162.50/-
was admitted without prejudice.
1 Third notice date 28.05.2018 2 Rent as on 26.03.1994 Rs.3478.70 3 Rate at which Enhancement is sought 10.00% 4 Enhanced rent @10% Rs.3826.62/- w.e.f. 01.05.2018 5 Notice served or not Yes 6 Whether notice replied Yes on 26.04.2018 7 Contention of defendant Notice is bad because first notice of 26.03.1994 was bad however admitted rent of Rs.3479/- without prejudice.
39.Considering the above factual position of three instances of enhancement of rent under Section 6A r/w Section 8 of DRC Act, 1958 as also the admitted fact that defendant has already conceded that the last rent CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 17 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited payable was Rs.3,479/- per month defendant tenant has been paying rent at this rate. According to the plaintiff the rent stood enhanced to Rs.3478.70p w.e.f. 01.04.2015 on the basis of notice dated 16.02.2015, defendant tenant started paying at the enhanced rate since 01.05.2018. In so far as issuance of notice dated 28.03.2018 which seeks to further enhance the monthly rent from Rs.3478.70p to Rs.3826.62p w.e.f. 01.05.2018 was admittedly received by the defendant tenant and was also responded on 26.04.2018.
40.However, by strict stipulation of law as discussed supra and as elaborated by Honble High Court of Delhi in Deepak Nijhawan Case this Court finds that the monthly rent of the property stood enhanced to Rs.3826.62p from 01.05.2018. Consequently, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the party came out of the realm of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as the rent crossed the benchmark of Rs.3500/- per month as provided under Section 3 (c) of DRC Act, 1958. Accordingly, issue no. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of plaintiff landlord and against the defendant tenant. Defendant is no more a statutory tenant under DRC Act, 1958 and jurisidction of this Court to entertain this suit as per Section 106 of TPA, 1882 is nowhere barred under Section 50 of DRC Act.
Issue No. 3:
iii. Whether suit is liable to be rejected for non-compliance of Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015? OPD
41.An objection was taken by the defendant tenant that the plaintiff did not comply mandatory Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as no Pre-Institution Mediation was carried out before Central District Legal Services Authority. For ready reference Section 12A is reproduced hereunder:
CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 18 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Pre-litigation Mediation and Settlement
(l) A suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under this Act, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre-institution mediation in accordance with such manner and procedure as may be prescribed by rules made by the Central Government.
(2) For the Purposes of pre-litigation mediation, the Central Government may, by notification, authorise
(i) the Authority constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act. 1987 (39 of 1987); or
(ii) a mediation service provider as defined under clause (m) of Section 3 of the Mediation Act, 2023.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), the Authority or mediation service provider authorised by the Central Government under sub-section (2) shall complete the process of mediation within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of application made by the plaintiff under sub-section (l ):
Provided further that, the period of mediation may be extended for a further period of sixty days with the consent of the parties:
Provided further that, the period during which the parties spent for pre-litigation mediation shall not be computed for thc purposes of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963).
(4) lf the parties to the commercial dispute arrive at a settlement, the same shall be reduced into writing and shall be signed by the parties and the mediator.
(5)The mediated settlement agreement arrived at under this section shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 and 28 of the Mediation Act, 2023.]
42.As far as the legal bindingness of this provision is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Patil Automation Limited Vs. Rakheja Engineering Private Ltd. (2022) Latest Caselaw 645 SC, dated 17.08.2022 has ruled that Section 12A is not a directory provision but a mandatory one. Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it abundantly clear that a commercial suit filed without compliance of mandatory Section 12A Pre- Institution Mediation deserves to be rejected. In Patil Automation (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the compliance of Section 12A of the Act mandatory Pan India only with effect from 20.08.2022. Para 84 of the above judgment declares that in case the jurisdictional High Court CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 19 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited has already ruled that Section 12A of the Act is mandatory, the cut off date of 20.08.2022 is immaterial for such commercial courts. For ready reference relevant paras of Patil Automation Judgment are reproduced hereunder:
43. "Section 12A cannot be described as a mere procedural law. Exhausting pre-
institution mediation by the plaintiff, with all the benefits that may accrue to the parties and, more importantly, the justice delivery system as a whole, would make Section 12A not a mere procedural provision. The design and scope of the Act, as amended in 2018, by which Section 12A was inserted, would make it clear that Parliament intended to give it a mandatory flavour. Any other interpretation would not only be in the teeth of the express language used but, more importantly, result in frustration of the object of the Act and the Rules"...........
58. A perusal of the Act and the Rules reveal the existence of a complete Code. Mediation contemplated under Section 12A and the Rules, may not succeed in every case. To begin with, the figures may not be reassuring but even if success does not elude the Mediator, in a few of the cases, a good part of the object of the Legislature, would stand achieved.
72. The Act did not originally contain Section 12A. It is by amendment in the year 2018 that Section 12A was inserted. The Statement of Objects and Reasons are explicit that Section 12A was contemplated as compulsory. The object of the Act and the Amending Act of 2018, unerringly point to at least partly foisting compulsory mediation on a plaintiff who does not contemplate urgent interim relief...... The object is clear. It is an undeniable reality that Court in India are reeling under an extraordinary docket explosion. Mediation, as an Alternative Dispute Mechanism, has been identified as a workable solution in commercial matters. In other words, the cases under the Act lend themselves to be resolved through mediation. Nobody has an absolute right to file a civil suit. A civil suit can be barred absolutely or the bar may operate unless certain conditions are fulfilled. A trained Mediator can work wonders. Mediation must be perceived as a new mechanism of access to justice.........
The fact that the mediation can become a non-starter, cannot be a reason to hold the provision not mandatory.
84. Having regard to all these circumstances, we would dispose of the matters in the following manner. We declare that Section 12A of the Act is mandatory and hold that any suit instituted violating the mandate of Section 12A must be visited with rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. This power can be exercised even suo moto by the Court as explained earlier in the judgment. We, however, make this declaration effective from 20.08.2022 so that concerned stakeholders become sufficiently informed. Still further, we however direct that in case 95 plaints have already been rejected and no steps have been taken within the period of limitation, the matter cannot be reopened on the basis of this declaration. Still further, if the order of rejection of the plaint has been acted upon by filing a fresh suit, the declaration of prospective effect will not avail the plaintiff. Finally, if the plaint is filed violating Section 12A after the jurisdictional High Court has declared Section 12A mandatory also, the plaintiff will not be entitled to the relief.
(Emphasis Supplied)
CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 20 of 31
Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited
43.In this regard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that his case is not covered under Section 12A in so far as plaintiff had already filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC as also another application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner. This plea is opposed by Ld. Counsel for the defendant on the ground that these applications were meritless in so far as both of them were dismissed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court on merits. Be that as it may, mere dismissal of an ad interim injunction application seeking urgent relief does not ipso facto mean that the case is covered under the same. Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruled that mere filing of an application for interim relief would justify non-initiation of Pre-Institution Mediation under Section 12A. In case titled Chandra Kishore Chaurasia Vs. R A Perfumery Works Pvt. Ltd., 2022 Latest Caselaw 2652 Del (vibhu bhakru, Delhi High Court) the judgment cited is in an IPR suit where application under Section 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC are invariably filed for seeking ex-parte ad interim injuction, still reference to para 29 to para 35 would make a beneficial reading. The same are reproduced hereunder:
29. A plain reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 indicates that the institution of a suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief, is proscribed unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre-institution mediation in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed. There is no ambiguity that a suit, which contemplates urgent interim relief, is excluded from the rigor of Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Thus, a plaintiff seeking to institute a suit involving urgent interim relief(s) is not required to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation.
30. The contention that it would be necessary for the plaintiff to file an application seeking exemption from the provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, is unmerited. This Court cannot accept the said contention for several reasons.
31. First of all, there is no provision under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 that requires the plaintiff to make any such application in a suit which involves urgent interim reliefs. As stated above, if the suit involves urgent interim relief, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is inapplicable and it is not necessary for the plaintiff to enter into a pre-institution mediation.
32. Second, a suit, which does not contemplate urgent interim relief, cannot be instituted without exhaustion of pre-institution mediation, as required under Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. As noted above, the Supreme Court has held that the said provision is mandatory and it is compulsory for a plaintiff to exhaust the remedy of pre-
CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 21 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited institution mediation, in accordance with the rules before instituting a suit. The Court has no discretion to exempt a plaintiff from the applicability of Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It is not permissible for the court to pass an order contrary to law; therefore, an application seeking exemption from engaging in pre-
institution mediation, in a suit that does not involve urgent interim reliefs, would not lie.
33. This Court also finds it difficult to accept that a commercial court is required to determine whether the urgent interim reliefs ought to have been claimed in a suit for determining whether the same is hit by the bar of Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The question whether a plaintiff desires any urgent relief is to be decided solely by the plaintiff while instituting a suit. The court may or may not accede to such a request for an urgent interim relief. But that it not relevant to determine whether the plaintiff was required to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation. The question whether a suit involves any urgent interim relief is not contingent on whether the court accedes to the plaintiff's request for interim relief.
34. The use of the words "contemplate any urgent interim relief" as used in Section 12(1) of theCommercial Courts Act, 2015 are used to qualify the category of a suit. This is determined solely on the frame of the plaint and the relief sought. The plaintiff is the sole determinant of the pleadings in the suit and the relief sought.
35. This Court is of the view that the question whether a suit involves any urgent interim relief is tobe determined solely on the basis of the pleadings and the relief(s) sought by the plaintiff. If a plaintiff seeks any urgent interim relief, the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has not exhausted the pre-institution remedy of mediation as contemplated under Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
(Emphasis Supplied)
44. Hon'ble Supreme Court has in this regard categorically ruled in case titled Yamini Manohar Vs. TADK Keerthi, 2023 Latest Caselaw 2018 Del (sanjiv khanna) as under, "The Commercial Court correctly came to a conclusion that the Plaintiff contemplated grant of urgent interim relief and was thus not required to exhaust the remedy of pre- institution mediation."
45.Considering the fact that the suit in hand is a landlord-tenant dispute and relief of injunction in such disputes are pressed for preservation of the possession and infrastructure of the property, this Court find no reason as to why this case shall be covered under Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 22 of 31
Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited
Issue no. 4:
iv. Whether plaintiff no. 1 is entitled to decree of possession of tenanted suit property i.e. first and second floors of built up property i.e. 2E/26, Swami Ram Tirath Nagar, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi as shown in the site plan? OPP
46.As regards the aspect of entitlement of plaintiff landlord to seek possession of the tenanted suit property as described supra, the law in this regard is governed by Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. For ready reference the same is reproduced as under:
Section 106 Transfer of Property Act: Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage "(1) In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months' notice; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days' notice.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the period mentioned in sub-section (1) shall commence from the date of receipt of notice.
(3) A notice under sub-section (1) shall not be deemed to be invalid merely because the period mentioned therein falls short of the period specified under that sub-section, where a suit or proceeding is filed after the expiry of the period mentioned in that sub-section.
(4) Every notice under sub-section (1) must be in "writing", signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or servants at his residence, or (if such tender or delivery is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property."
(Emphasis Supplied)
47.It is a settled legal proposition that Summons of the suit can be treated as notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. "In any view of the matter, it is well settled that filing of an eviction suit under the general law itself is a notice to quit on the tenant. In case titled Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh HUF, 2007 Latest Caselaw 30 SC Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"In any view of the matter, it is well settled that filing of an eviction suit under the general law itself is a notice to quit on the tenant.......
CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 23 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited
48.Applying the above statutory provisions on the facts of this case admittedly no lease deed was entered or executed between the parties either orally or in writing. Consequentially, the defendant herein can at the most be treated as a statutory tenant under Transfer of Property Act and his tenancy starts from 1st day of each calender month and ends with the last day. Such tenancies as per Section 106 (1) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 can be brought to an end by service of a 15 day notice.
49.In case titled Jiwan Dass vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR Online 1993 SC 295, dated 28.09.1993 Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled as under:
4. Section 106 of the T.P. Act does indicate that the landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy by giving 15 days' notice, if it is a premises occupied on monthly tenancy and by giving 6 months' notice and if the premises are occupied for agricultural or manufacturing purposes; and on expiry thereof proceedings could be initiated..........
50.In case titled M/s Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited Vs. Amit Chand Mitra & Anr., 2023 Latest Caselaw 745 SC Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled as under:
10. .....So far as Section 106 of the said statute is concerned, in which distinction is made between lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purpose and lease of immovable property for any other purpose, the same provides that a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from year-to-year terminable by six months' notice. In other cases, termination would require fifteen days' notice.......
51.Attention of this Court is drawn to termination of lease notice Ex.PW1/9 available at page no. 208 of the documents of the plaintiff. This notice dated 28.12.2020 was admittedly served on 29.12.2020 and as per tracking report Ex.PW1/9 (colly.) and the same was duly replied by the defendant vide reply Ex.PW1/10 dated 03.01.2021. Perusal of this notice shows that it only calls for the defendant to hand over the possession of the property within 15 days of receipt of notice but does not carry a categorical statement that the statutory tenancy under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act also stands terminated. Although the notice CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 24 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited mentions that the tenancy in question already stands terminated in the year 1995 by way of legal notice dated 14.12.1995 when the same was issued under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
52.In this regard Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has relied on case titled Radhakrishan Temple Trust Maithan, Agra Vs. M/s Hindco Rotatron Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., 2011 Latest Caselaw 6248 Del Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in para 4 held as under:
4. The intention of the legislature in bringing about the amendment to Section 106 of the Act is very clear by virtue of sub-section (3) in that all technical defences to the notice under Section 106 of the Act on the ground that the same was an invalid notice as the monthly tenancy was not terminated by a notice ending with the tenancy month, were done away with as long as a 15 day notice period was given to the tenant to vacate the premises. Suits for possession thus could not be dismissed on the ground of invalidity of the notice terminating the tenancy. Obviously, this amendment was in accordance with real intention and spirit of Section 106 of the Act whereby the tenant was only required to be given a reasonable time to vacate the property. The legislature considers this reasonable time to be of 15 days. Therefore, every tenant by virtue of amended Section 106 of the Act is put to notice that in case the landlord is legally entitled to ask the tenant to vacate the premises, the tenant shall vacate the premises as long as the tenant has a 15 days notice period to vacate the tenanted premises. That the legislative intention for not delaying the suits for possession filed by landlords can be further noticed from the fact that the amended Section 106 was also to apply to all pending litigations.
53.In case titled Pushpa Kumari Devi Vs. The Embassy of Syrian Arab Republic, 2003 Latest Caselaw 357 Del Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in para 33 held as under:
33. .......Though the landlady appears to have had laboured under the impression that it was a tenancy for a period of five years expiring on 1st of January, 1991 and, accordingly, felt that the tenancy was to come to an end by efflux of time and for that reason it was not necessary to specifically terminate the tenancy, her intention was quite loud and clear to the defendant that she was under no circumstance in favor of its continuance as a tenant in the suit property and that it had to go on or before 1st January, 1991 by vacating and delivering back vacant possession of the premises. In the light of the legal position set out hereinabove, there appears no substance in the submissions made on behalf of the defendant questioning the validity of the notice(Ex.PW-3/7)..........
54.Even otherwise it is a settled legal proposition that even a suit filed under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act shall be treated as a notice for eviction and no suit shall fail by citing any defect in the legal notice of CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 25 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited possession. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that plaintiff has successfully shown his entitlement to seek possession of the tenanted suit property. This issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. 5:
v. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to a joint decree of Rs.26,08,995/- alongwith interest @15% per annum? OPP
55.Plaintiff seeks recovery of Rs.26,08,995/- with the break up of the amount as contained in para 47 of the plaint which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
(i) That the defendant has not deposited the rent for the two Rs. 6,958/-
months which comes to Rs. @ Rs. 3479 for two months
(ii) Difference in the increase rent not deposited by the Defendant Rs. 10,757/- @ Rs. 347/- Per months for 31 months which comes to Rs.
(iii) The interest @ 15% on the arrears of Increased rent for Rs. 8,280/- Two Months and also difference in the increased rent Total ((i)+(ii)+ (iii)) Rs.25,995/-
(iv) The illegal use and Occupation Charges @ Rs. 3,00,000/- per Rs. 18,00,000/- month for six months commencing from 01.02.2021 to July, 2021 for six months amount Rs. 18,00,000/-. The said amount of Rs 18,00,000/- is due from the defendant to Plaintiff No. 1 to 5
(v) Interest on Rs. 18,00,000/-@15% Per Annum for the period Rs. 1,35,000 /- from February 2021 to July, 2021
(vi) The illegal use and Occupation Charges @ Rs. 3,00,000/- per Rs. 6,00,000/- month for two months Rs. 6,00,000/- for the period commencing August and September, 2021.The plaintiff no. 1 is entitled for sum of Rs 6,00,000/-. The plaintiff no. 1 is entitled for the aforesaid Amount after the execution and registration of relinquishment deed dated 02.07.2021
(vii) Interest on Rs. 6,00,000/-@15% Per Annum for the period Rs.15,000/- from August and September, 2021
(viii) Legal charges for sending various notices to the defendants Rs. 33,000/-
TOTAL Rs. 26,08,995/-
(Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Five only)
56.Perusal of sub clauses 1, 2, 3 shows that neither the months nor the year is mentioned for the recovery under these heads. As far as claim heads under CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 26 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited 4 and 5 of the above table ie. Occupation charge of 6 months from 01.01.2021 to 31.07.2021 @Rs.3 lakh per month is concerned, in order to show the entitlement of the plaintiff, plaintiff has placed and proved on record lease deed executed by PW2 Anuradha Arora in her affidavit Ex.PW2/A. She stated that the registered lease agreement dated 27.03.2018 Ex.PW1/30 qua property no. 2E/27, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi according to which the monthly rent was Rs. 2 lakhs. In her crossexamination she stated that her property is around 650-700 sq. Feet and the rent is around Rs.150-200 sq. Feet.
57.In this regard Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argues that the above lease deed is good 7 years old and the rent of Rs. 2 lakh per month was fetched by a property of around 700 sq. Feets whereas the suit property in question is of 2200-2500 sq. Feet combined on the first and second floor. It is accepted that in such commercial areas the rent of ground floor can't be compared with first floor or for that matter with second floor but considering the fact that the size of the suit property is three times larger than the ground floor as mentioned in the lease deed.
58.It is pointed out by Ld. Counsel for defendant that the captioned period of 01.02.2021 to July 2021 was peak period for covid and plaintiff's demand of Rs.18 lakhs rental for this period apart from interest at 15% i.e. Rs.1.35 lakhs is very higher. Likewise, recovery sought under claim head vi and vii is also at the same rate. Considering the covid period lockdwon the claim of mesne profit of Rs. 3 lakh per month is found to be exorbitantantly high. The monthly occupation charge for the above period is assessed at Rs.40,000/- per month. Rs. 40,000/- is almost ten times the last rent paid by the defendant to the plaintiff which was Rs.3,879/- per month. The total recovery under the above 7 heads comes to Rs.3.20 lakhs.
CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 27 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited
59.Another aspect ancillary to it is mesne profit during pendency of the suit and till realization of the actual physical possession. Admittedly the plaint does not carry any prayer whatsoever in this regard. Consequently, no separate issue was dedicated for adjudication as to whether plaintiff is entitled to mesne profit and if so at what rate.
60.In this regard plaintiff has relied on case titled Gopalakrishna Pillai & Ors. vs. Meenakshi Ayal & Ors., 1966 Latest Caselaw 96 SC wherein it has been held that Order 20 Rule 12 of the CPC enables the Court to pass a decree both for past and future mesne profits. It was further held that as regards the past mesne profits, the plaintiff has existing cause of action at the time of institution of the suit while for future mesne profits though he has no cause of action as on date of institution of the suit but he can claim such relief of future mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC and the Court may award such relief even if the same is not specifically asked for in the plaint. The relevant para is reproduced as under:
7. In the plaint, there was no specific prayer for a decree for mesne profits subsequent to the institution of the suit. Counsel for the appellants argued that in the absence of such a specific prayer, the High Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for such mesne profits. We are unable to accept this contention. Order 20, r. 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that "where a suit is for the recovery of possession of immovable property and for rent or mesne profits" the Court may pass a decree for the possession of the property and directing an inquiry as to the rent or mesne profits for a period prior to the institution of the suit and as to the subsequent mesne profits. The question is whether the provisions of O.20, r. 12 apply to the present suit. We find that the plaintiffs distinctly pleaded in paragraph 9 of the plaint that they were entitled to call upon the defendants to account for mesne profits since the death of Chinnayal in respect of the suit properties. For the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fees, they valued their claim for possession and mesne profits for three years prior to the date of the suit and paid court-fee thereon. In the prayer portion of the plaint, they claimed recovery of possession, an account of mesne profits for three years prior to the date of the suit, costs and such other relief as may seem fit and proper to the Court in the circumstances of the case. On a reading of the plaint, we are satisfied that the suit was for recovery of possession of immovable property and for mesne profits. The provisions of O.20, r. 12 were, therefore, attracted to the suit and the Court had power to pass a, decree in the suit for both past and future mesne profits.
CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 28 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited
61.In case titled Santosh Arora and Ors. Vs. M.L. Arora, 2014 Latest Caselaw 2426 Del dated 13.05.2014, Hon'ble High Court held as under:
E. The Supreme Court in R.S. Madanappa Vs. Chandramma AIR 1965 SC 1812 & Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Shri Chandramaul AIR 1966 SC 735 has held that where in a suit for recovery of possession a claim for recovery of mesne profits for the period till the date of institution of the suit is made, even if no claim / prayer for recovery of future mesne profits from the date of institution of the suit till the date of delivery of possession is made, Order 20 Rule 12 mandates the Court to direct such an enquiry into future mesne profits.
F. The reason for the aforesaid is not hard to fathom; the intent is to avoid multiplicity of suits for mesne profits for successive period after the date of the institution of the suit; each of such suits would have to be filed for recovery of mesne profits for a maximum period of three years, to avoid the defence of the claim for mesne profits having become barred by time.
62.Considering the material available on record the pre-suit monthly rent/occupation charge is assessed as Rs.40,000/-. For pendente lite period i.e. from October 2021 to May 2025 the same is assessed as Rs.1,20,000/-
per month for 44 months which comes around to Rs.52,80,000/- (Rs.1,20,000 x 44 = Rs.52,80,000).
63.In so far as the mesne profit has been assessed by this Court @Rs.1,20,000/- and relief has already been granted to the plaintiff, the unilateral deposit of rent by the defendant for the same period @Rs.3,479/- can be withdrawn back by the defendant.
Issue no. 6, 7 and 8:
vi. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant or any person acting through them from parting with the possession of the suit property to any third person? OPP vii. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction restraining changing the structure of the suit property or carrying out unauthorised construction? OPP viii. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant tenant to change the pipes installed on the first and second floors at their own cost? OPP
64.As far as remaining issues are concerned a statement is made by Ld. Counsel for defendant at Bar that his client will not carry out any above CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 29 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited alteration or create a third party right in the suit property in any manner. In view of the same, the above issues are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Interest
65. The interest on pendente lite and future period on rent/occupation charges is payable as per Section 34 CPC. For ready reference, Section 34 CPC is reproduced hereunder:
Section 34 CPC: Interest
(i)"Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period prior to the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate not exceeding 6% per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the court thinks fit.
(ii).Provided that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed 6% per annum but shall not exceed the contractual rate or interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalized banks in relation to commercial transactions.
Explanation (i) In this sub-section, "nationalized bank" means a corresponding new bank as defined in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970.
Explanation (ii) For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability.
Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest (on such principal sum) from the date of the decree to the date of the payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest, and a separate suit therefore shall not lie.
(Emphasis Supplied)
66. Section 34 CPC provides that plaintiff will be entitled the interest at the rate at which Court finds reasonable. For a general suit, the rate of interest prescribed is 6% and for commercial suit, the Parliament promulgates that rate of interest may increase from 6% to a rate which is found reasonable. Plaintiff is accordingly entitled to only the rate at which RBI has issued Circular for Commercial suits.
CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 30 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited
67. As far as the interest is concerned, rate applicable to Commercial transaction shall be payable. As per RBI notification dated 30.08.2022 issued vide Press Release no.2022-2023/794 whereby advisory issued by RBI to Schedule Commercial banks of accepting deposit rates @ 9.05% per annum.
Relief
68.In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with the reliefs mentioned above. Interest on Pendente lite and future period on rent/occupation charge is assessed @9%. Plaintiff's lawyer's fees is assessed as Rs.50,000/-.
69.The rent/occupation charge for future period is assessed as Rs.2,00,000/- per month from today i.e. date of judgment and decree. It is a settled law that plaintiff has to pay court fees on this mesne profit as per Court Fees Act.
70.Decree sheet will be prepared only after plaintiff makes good the deficiency.
71.Before parting with this judgment this Court would like to place on record its appreciation for the able assistance and hard work put in by legal teams of both the sides specially Sh. Keshav Sehgal and his team led by Sh. P. P. Ahuja and Sh. Vinayak Thakur, Ld. Counsel for defendant. This judgment marks culmination of a dispute which practically started between the parties for 3 decades in 1995.
72.File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SURINDER SURINDER S RATHI S RATHI Date:
2025.06.06 16:12:16 +0530 (SURINDER S. RATHI) District Judge, Commercial Court -11 Central District, THC Delhi/29.05.2025 CS Comm No.3996/2021 page 31 of 31 Pran Nath Mehta Vs. M/s CRI Limited