Delhi District Court
Om Prakash Sachdeva vs Shri Satpal Narang on 7 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF Ms. REKHA RANI
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST) : DELHI
CS No. 17/16
Unique Case ID No.02401C0102432016
Om Prakash Sachdeva
S/o Late Shri H. R. Sachdeva
R/o. House No. 1/81, Punjabi Bagh West
New Delhi - 110026. . . . . Plaintiff
versus
Shri Satpal Narang
S/o Late Shri Chaman Lal Narang
R/o House No. 188, Avtaar Enclave
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063. . . . . Defendant
Date of Institution : 15.02.2016
Date of reserving the order : 28.04.2016
Date of pronouncement : 07.05.2016
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has interalia submitted that he is owner of entire property bearing No. 1/81, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi, out of which, he let out two premises to the defendant by virtue of two separate lease deeds. The first premises comprising of one room measuring 11x12 sq. ft. with kitchen measuring 5x11 sq. ft. in the said property was leased to the defendant vide lease deed dated 03.01.1987 for a period of 11 months which lease was never renewed after its expiry. It is CS No. 17/16 Om Prakash Sachdeva vs. Satpal Narang Page 1/11 further submitted that he had also leased out second premises comprising of one room measuring 9x11 sq. ft. with open space 9x10 sq. ft. in the same property to the defendant vide lease deed dated 03.01.1987 for a period of 11 months which lease was also never renewed after expiry. It is further submitted that infact the entire premises leased out to the defendant through two different lease deeds (in short 'suit property') as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint, is actually one shop and that after the expiry of the two lease deeds, the said one shop was taken to be as a single tenancy by both the parties and since then, the defendant had been paying consolidated rent @ Rs. 5,000/- per month.
It is further submitted that after expiry of the lease qua suit property, the defendant has become a month to month tenant therein.
It is further submitted that in the month of August 2015, the plaintiff decided to discontinue the said tenancy and he accordingly sent a legal notice dated 06.08.2015 to the defendant wherein it was specifically mentioned that plaintiff was no longer interested in keeping the defendant as his tenant in respect of the suit property and accordingly the tenancy was terminated and the defendant was called upon to vacate and handover peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff on expiry of 15 CS No. 17/16 Om Prakash Sachdeva vs. Satpal Narang Page 2/11 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The said legal notice was duly served upon the defendant and in response to the same, the defendant sent a reply dated 24.08.2015. The defendant has failed to vacate the suit property despite lapse of time period stipulated in the notice and is in illegal possession of the suit property.
It is further submitted that the prevailing rate of rent of the identically placed accommodation in the vicinity is around Rs. 50,000/- per month which the suit property can easily fetch. After the termination of the tenancy, the defendant is stated to be liable to pay damages for illegal possession of the suit property. It is further submitted that the defendant is contemplating to create a third party interest in the suit property and part with the possession of the same.
Plaintiff has thus prayed for a decree of possession and a decree of mesne profit @ Rs. 50,000/- per month from the defendant for unlawful occupation of the suit property with interest @ 12% per annum and also for a decree for permanent injunction.
2. Summons of the suit were served on the defendant who appeared and contested the suit vide his written statement wherein it is stated that the suit is barred under Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short, 'the Act') as CS No. 17/16 Om Prakash Sachdeva vs. Satpal Narang Page 3/11 rental in respect of each tenancy is Rs.2,500/- per month. It is stated that two tenancies were created in favour of the defendant in respect of different premises, which cannot be clubbed with an intent to maintain the instant suit. It is denied that suit property constitutes one single shop or that parties ever treated the two tenancies as a single tenancy. It is stated that for convenience purpose, the rental though separate was paid to the plaintiff in lumpsum i.e. Rs.5,000/- per month. It is also stated that the tenancy was created for unlimited period and therefore the plaintiff cannot determine the same.
3. Plaintiff filed an application under Order 12 rule 6 CPC, which application was contested by the defendant vide his reply thereto. The instant application is under adjudication.
4. I have heard Shri Gagan Chhabra, Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and Shri Kuldeep Mansukhani, Ld. counsel for the defendant and perused the record.
5. In order to be entitled to decree for possession of the suit property under Order 12 rule 6 CPC, the plaintiff has to prove the following three ingredients :-
CS No. 17/16 Om Prakash Sachdeva vs. Satpal Narang Page 4/11• that there exists jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;
• that the rental of suit property is more than Rs. 3,500/- per month; and • that the tenancy stood determined by efflux of time or service of legal notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act.
Admission Qua Existence Of Jural Relationship Of Landlord And Tenant Between The Parties
6. Plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant was leased out the suit property vide lease deed dated 03.01.1987 which was never renewed after its expiry qua which the defendant has admitted that the plaintiff is his landlord under two different lease agreements and the rate of rent is Rs. 2,500/- per month each. The existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is therefore proved.
Admission Qua Rent Being More Than Rs.3,500/- Per Month
7. It is not in dispute that plaintiff had leased two premises to the defendant by virtue of two different lease deeds both dated 03.01.1987. The said lease deeds are not registered. Perusal of both the lease deeds indicate that CS No. 17/16 Om Prakash Sachdeva vs. Satpal Narang Page 5/11 tenancy was created for a duration of 11 months. Plaintiff has stated that the said lease deeds were never renewed. Defendant in para 5 of his written statement has stated that "the tenancy was created for unlimited period".
8. Lease deeds between the parties dated 03.01.1987 are unregistered lease deeds. Once lease deed is unregistered, the tenancy in law would be monthly tenancy.
9. It is pertinent to refer here to the reply of the defendant dated 24.08.2015 to legal notice of plaintiff dated 06.08.2015. At page No.2 para B sub-para (1) of the reply, it is mentioned that :-
"it is submitted that the lease deed of the premise in question was made/executed in 1987 with rent fixed at Rs.500/- per month for a duration of eleven months (11 months); commencing from 01.01.1987. The said deed was impliedly continued every eleven months and the rent was increased as per law and what was mutually satisfying to both the lessor and the lessee herein."
10. So even as per defendant's own case the tenancy was never intended to be indefinite or perpetual. In the absence of unregistered lease deed, it is deemed to be monthly tenancy, which tenancy can be determined by service of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act.
CS No. 17/16 Om Prakash Sachdeva vs. Satpal Narang Page 6/1111. In order to be entitled to a decree of possession under Order 12 rule 6 CPC as prayed for vide the instant application, plaintiff has to further prove that rental of tenancy is more than Rs. 3,500/- per month and as such the defendant is not entitled to protection of Delhi Rent Control Act.
12. It is not in dispute that tenancy in respect of two premises was created vide two different lease deeds both dated 03.01.1987. Case of the plaintiff is that the entire premises let out to the defendant by virtue of two different lease deeds is actually one shop and after expiry of lease period of eleven months, lease deeds dated 03.01.1987 were never renewed and the same was taken to be a single tenancy and that defendant has been paying consolidated rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month in respect of that one shop i.e. suit property.
13. It is relevant to note that the plaintiff reiterated the said averments in his legal notice dated 06.08.2015 in para 1 and 2 thereof which is under :-
"........The entire premises covered under the two lease deeds is actually one shop having total area of 386 sq. ft. area approximately. The entire premises/shop is also known as shop no. 4 and being used by you under the name and style ("Balaji Associates").CS No. 17/16 Om Prakash Sachdeva vs. Satpal Narang Page 7/11
2. That since the entire premises is a shop so therefore after a period of time both these leases got consolidated into one and there was no bifurcation of tenancy. The tenancy was thus considered as a Single Tenancy by both the parties and you have since been paying consolidated rent accordingly. Please further note that the last such rent paid by you for the month of June 2015 in respect of the shop was Rs. 5,000/- paid through cheque to my client."
14. Reply of defendant dated 24.08.2016 to the said legal notice dated 06.08.2015 is also relevant which is to the effect that :-
"C. Kindly find a parawise reply to your legal notice dated 06.08.2015 as under :-
1. That the averments made in para under reply are admitted in toto.
2. That the averments made in para under reply are admitted in toto. However, it must be added that the lease was impliedly extended as rent was paid regularly."
which means defendant admitted specifically that after expiry of the lease deeds dated 03.01.1987, the suit property was treated as single tenancy comprising of one shop and defendant paid consolidated rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month in respect of the suit property to the plaintiff.
15. It is surprising that after filing the instant suit for recovery of possession, the defendant has taken a U-turn in CS No. 17/16 Om Prakash Sachdeva vs. Satpal Narang Page 8/11 his written statement and has pleaded contrary to his reply to the legal notice that the two lease deeds created tenancy in respect of two different premises which are not part of one shop and which cannot be treated as a single tenancy. Although he admitted consolidated payment of Rs. 5,000/- per month as rental, he tried to clarify the same by saying that lumpsum payment of Rs. 5,000/- towards rental was paid to the plaintiff "for convenience".
16. The case of the defendant has no substance. The initial lease deed dated 03.01.1987 in respect of two different portions of the same property expired by efflux of time. Admittedly, the said lease deeds were never renewed. Legally said tenancy became monthly which can be determined by service of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act.
Admission Qua Termination of Tenancy As Per Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act
17. Plaintiff has submitted that the lease was terminated vide legal notice dated 06.08.2015. The said legal notice was duly served upon the defendant and in response to the same, the defendant sent a reply dated 24.08.2015 The legal notice dated 06.08.2015 is placed on record alongwith reply to the same dated 24.08.2015.
CS No. 17/16 Om Prakash Sachdeva vs. Satpal Narang Page 9/1118. In M/s. Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. vs. Santokh Singh (HUF), 2008 (2) SCC 728, the Hon'ble Apex Court has interalia held that :-
"It is well settled that filing of an eviction suit under the general law itself is a notice to quit on the tenant. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that no notice to quit was necessary under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act in order to enable the respondent to get a decree of eviction against the appellant".
19. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case M/s.
Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. vs. M/s. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) & Anr. in RFA No. 179/2011 decided on 25.03.2011 while placing reliance on M/s. Nopany Investments (P) Ltd.(supra) held that :-
"Even assuming the notice terminating tenancy was not served upon the appellant (though it has been served and as held by me above) the tenancy would stand terminated on filing of the subject suit against the appellant/defendant".
20. It is settled judicial view that Order XII Rule 6 CPC must be invoked for speedy adjudication if effect of pleadings or documents and even inferences arising therefrom (Dr. Singh & Anr. Vs. Deepa Chaudhary & Ors. - MANU/DE/2080/2013) call for the same.
CS No. 17/16 Om Prakash Sachdeva vs. Satpal Narang Page 10/1121. In Sushil Bhardwaj Vs. Ved Prakash Shastri - 2009 (163) DLT 287, Hon'ble High Court observed that Order XII Rule 6 CPC need to be invoked in public interest to ensure speedy disposal of cases.
22. In Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors. vs. Kamal Saroj Mahajan & Anr., (2005) 11 SCC 279, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that even an implied admission can be looked into for the purpose of Order 12 rule 6 CPC.
23. In view of above, the civil suit bearing No. 17/2016 is hereby decreed under Order 12 rule 6 CPC for recovery of possession of the suit property i.e. the first premises comprising of one room measuring 11x12 sq. ft. with kitchen measuring 5x11 sq. ft. and second premises comprising of one room measuring 9x11 sq. ft. with open space 9x10 sq. ft. in property bearing No. 1/81, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi as shown in red colour in site plan. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in Open Court ( Rekha Rani )
today the 7th day of District & Sessions Judge (West)
May, 2016. Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
CS No. 17/16 Om Prakash Sachdeva vs. Satpal Narang Page 11/11