Delhi District Court
Ashwani Kumar Verma vs Mr Ankush Kumar Tandon on 12 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS VANDANA JAIN
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-07
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS
NEW DELHI
RCA No. 8904/16
In the matter of:
Ashwani Kumar Verma
S/o Late Dr P.C. Verma
R/o 39, Mandakini Enclave
Alaknanda, New Delhi. ...... Appellant
Versus
1. Mr Ankush Kumar Tandon
S/o Late Ashok Kumar Tandon
R/o Janak Kutir Hansol
Ahmdabad-700001, Gujrat
2. M/s Duncan's Industries Ltd
Through its Charmian
31, Netaji Subash Road
Calcutta
3. M/s Duncan's Tea Ltd
Through its Chairman S/o. Late Sh. Dev Karan
31, Netaji Subash Road
Calcutta ........ Respondents
Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 1 of 24 Date of Institution : 16.07.2016 Date of final arguments : 26.03.2018 Date of Order : 12.04.2018 ORDER ON APPEAL 1 This appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as appellant) against the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.04.2016 passed by Ld. Trial Court whereby the suit of respondent No. 1/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as respondent no. 1) was partly decree only to the extent of relief of possession was decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
2 The brief facts necessary to decide the present appeal are that in April 2002, a license agreement was executed between the licensor/owner Sh. Ashok Kumar Tandon (since deceased) father of the respondent no. 1 and the licensee M/s Duncan's Industries Ltd i.e. respondent no. 2 (defendant no. 1 in the suit case) for the premises bearing No. 39, Mandakini Enclave, Alakhnanda, New Delhi Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 2 of 24 (hereinafter referred to as suit premises).
3. It is further stated that on 31.03.2003 the above said agreement expired and on 19.07.2003 the agreement was renewed for further period of three years upon the consent of both the parties. It is further stated that in April 2006, the Late Father of the respondent no. 1 expressed his desire to sell the leased premises once in occupation and possession of the appellant and an oral agreement was entered into between the appellant and Late Sh Ashok Kumar Tandon for total consideration of Rs. 35,00,000/-. It is further stated that on 24.04.2006, in furtherance of oral agreement, the appellant duly tendered a cheque drawn on ICICI Bank amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of Mr Ashok Kumar Tandon as token money/bayana. The appellant had even secured a loan from HSBC Bank to duly perform his obligation under the verbal agreement, which was duly encashed by Late Ashok Kumar Tandon on 03.05.2006.
4. The appellant put himself in possession of the said premise as prospective purchaser thereafter. It is further stated that one Mr Vijay who claimed himself to be son of Ashok Kumar Tandon started intimidating the appellant saying that Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 3 of 24 agreement previously entered within Sh Ashok Kumar Tandon has been called off and the property would not be sold for consideration of Rs. 35,00,000/- but to a higher amount. It is further submitted that on 05.07.2006, appellant issued a legal notice to Late Ashok Kumar Tandon and the same was duly received by him and on 27.07.2006 the father of the respondent no. 1 got the reply sent through his advocate in which he averred the fact that amount of earnest money i.e. Rs. 5,00,000/- was forfeited. Thereafter, appellant filed suit for specific performance against Late Sh Ashok Kumar Tandon, Vijay and Sonia Singh at Tis Hazari Courts, however, same was returned for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and directing the parties to appear in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
5. The same suit was registered in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, though, the same is stayed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP No. 36187/14. The said SLP was preferred by respondent no. 1 against the order in RFA, which the appellant was constrained to prefer against the order of Ld Single Judge, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
6. It is further stated that respondent on 27.09.2007 filed suit No. (CS 596/07) in the court of Sr. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari which was subsequently withdrawn by him. However, he Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 4 of 24 later filed the same suit in District Court Saket on 22.11.2010 after the gap of almost three years which was partly decreed by the then Ld ADJ, South District, Saket Courts vide order dated 20.12.2011 and reverted it back to Sr. Civil Judge, South as it was falling within the pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judge only. The then Ld ADJ, South, Saket Courts vide order dated 20.12.2011 had held all the claims of respondent no. 1 in the said suit for rent from period of April 2006 to January 2007 and mesne profit from January 2007 to September 2007 hence beyond period of limitation and the same have dismissed being time barred as per Articles 51 & 52 of the Limitation Act and the afore said order of the then Ld ADJ obtained finality as the same was not challenged by respondent herein to the higher courts.
7. It is further submitted that respondent no. 1 failed to amend the suit before the then Ld Civil Judge, however, on 10.03.2015 the counsel for respondent no. 1 gave statement that no amendment of the plaint was required.
8. Respondent no. 1 filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on 09.10.2015. Thereafter, the then Ld Civil Judge passed impugned judgment and decree for possession in favour of respondent no. 1 vide its order dated 29.04.2016 Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 5 of 24 allowing the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC which is under challenge and also passed separate order dated 29.04.2016 whereby she framed six issues.
9. Respondent no. 1 was the plaintiff before the Ld Trial Court. In his plaint, he stated that defendants no. 1 to 3 were the tenants in the above said premise. It is further submitted that defendant no. 2/appellant intended to purchase the property for a sum of Rs. 61 Lacs from the father of the respondent no. 1. However, he paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- only and a balance agreed sale consideration was not paid by him as per the verbal agreement entered between the father of respondent no. 1 and defendant no. 2. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 has filed a suit for specific performance of compensation and perpetual injunction against the father of the respondent no.
1. It is further submitted that respondent no. 1 had served upon the defendants the notice of termination of the tenancy with effect from the month of the tenancy expiring on 04.01.2007. Appellant replied to the legal notice dated 04.01.2007 vide letter dated 16.01.2007. The counsel for respondent no. 1 has duly replied to the reply of the appellant/defendant no. 2 vide letter dated 14.03.2007. It is further submitted that defendant no. 2 Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 6 of 24 has not paid the rent/usage charges from March 2006 till 15.01.2007. It is further stated that defendant had made unauthorized construction, alteration and addition in the premises without written permission of the respondent no. 1 and had damaged the suit premises. It is further stated that respondent no. 1 has neither renewed the tenancy nor accepted any rent for the said premises after the termination of the tenancy. It is further stated that appellant's occupation of the said premises after the date of termination of the tenancy is illegal and unauthorized.
10. The other two respondents/defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 3 who were the original tenants have simply stated that they had vacated the property on 31.03.2006 and ha paid full dues upto that date and they have no concern with the property whatsoever.
11. Ld counsel for appellant has argued that the appellant is an agreement purchaser and, therefore, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and he being the agreement purchaser is entitled to remain in possession of the suit property in view of the Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. She has further argued that plaintiff is only one of the LR of Ashok Tandon and had filed the suit alone without Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 7 of 24 making other LR as party and, therefore, suit was not maintainable.
12. She has further argued that issues were framed on 29.04.2016 and issue no. 4 is with respect to maintainability of suit. It is argued that when maintainability of suit is in question, how could the suit be partly decreed on the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. She has further argued that issue no. 5 is with respect to cause of action. This can be settled only by leading trial, whether plaintiff is entitled to reliefs or not.
13. Ld counsel for appellant has relied upon judgments:-
(i) Razia Begum Vs Sahebzadi Anwar Begum & Ors AIR 1958 SC 886
(ii) Ramsurat Devi Vs Satraji Kuer & Ors AIR 1975 Patna 168
(iii) Western Coalfields Ltd Vs M/s Swati Industries AIR 2003 Bombay 309
(iv) Vaijayanti Vs Chandrakant 2007 (4) ALLMR 593
(v) Lalita Sahoo & Ors Vs. Rania Das & Ors AIR 2004 Orissa 152
(vi) State Bank of India Vs. Midland Industries & Ors AIR 1988 Delhi 153 Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 8 of 24
(vii) R. Kanthimathi & Anr Vs Beatrice Xavier (200) 9 SCC 339, (viii) Alka Gupta Vs Narender Kumar Gupta AIR 2011 SC 9.
14. On the other hand, Ld counsel for respondent no. 1 has argued that the tenancy between the father of respondent no. 1 and respondent o. 2 & 3 had ended on 31.03.2006 and the appellant had no independent right as the suit premises was rented out for the residence of their employee who is the appellant herein. He had further argued that though the appellant had made advance payment of Rs 5 Lacs out of total consideration of Rs 61 Lacs for the purchase of suit premises on the oral agreement between his father and the appellant but the same was rescinded. He further submits that in the suit for ejectment, agreement purchaser has no independent right. He has relied upon judgments
(i) Sudhir Sabharwal Vs Rajesh Pruthi 218 (2015) DLT290,
(ii) Jannat Khan Vs. Ranbir Singh Vijayran 2015 SCC Online Del 14132
(iii) Mool Chand Bakhru & Anr Vs Rohan & Ors (2002) 2 SCC 612,
(iv) Dunlop India Ltd Vs. Sunil Puri & Ors 90 (2001) DLT 769 (DB) Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 9 of 24
(v) Surjit Sachdev Vs Kazakhstan Investment Services Pvt Ltd & Ors 66 (1997) DLT 54 (DB),
(vi) Sunil Kapoor Vs Himmat Singh 2010 (115) DRJ 229.
15. I have heard both the parties at length and perused the record carefully.
16. In brief the admitted facts in the present case are as under:-
Sh. Ashok Tandon, father of plaintiff had entered into a lease agreement with defendant no. 1/ Duncan Industries Ltd for letting out the suit premises for the residence of its employee i.e. appellant herein. Defendant no. 1 (respondent no. 2 herein) and defendant no. 3 (respondent no. 3 herein) were the actual tenants (registered public limited company) and defendant no. 2/appellant was their employee. The last paid rent was Rs 9990/- and this fact has been admitted by Duncan Industries Pvt Ltd as well as by the appellant herein. As far as the original tenants i.e. Duncan industries Pvt Ltd and Duncan Tea are concerned, it is admitted by them that their tenancy has expired by efflux on time on 31.03.2006 and after that they had no concern with the said property. In the letter dated 01.09.2006 written by Duncans to the respondent no. 1 herein i.e. son of the original landlord, it is clearly stated that relationship between Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 10 of 24 the Duncan and landlord has already ended only in year 2006 and they have no concern whatsoever with the property. It is worthwhile to note here that while entering into the license agreement initially with Duncans, it was clearly stated in clause 10 of the license agreement that :-"That the said premises, is let to M/s Duncans Industries Ltd for its Executive Mr A.K. Verma for the residential use of himself and his family members only. If he ceases to be an employee of the company or is transferred somewhere else, the Licensee shall handover the vacant and peaceful possession back to the licensor in accordance with the agreement."
17. From this clause, it is very much clear that suit premises was taken by Duncan industries only for the appellant herein being their executive for his residential use. It was clarified that in case he ceases to be an employee of the company or is transferred somewhere else, Duncans shall hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the building to the father of the plaintiff. Reading of clauses of this license agreement in entirety makes it clear that either the lease was to expire by efflux of time or by appellant ceasing to be in the service of the Duncan or by not renewing the agreement for a further period.
Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 11 of 24
18. It is an admitted fact which has already been discussed that tenancy with Duncans had expired on 31.03.2006. Thereafter, argument of the appellant herein is that he had entered into an oral agreement to sell with the father of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 in April 2006 and had paid Rs. 5 Lacs in April 2006 through a cheque out of total consideration amount of Rs. 35 Lacs agreed between the parties whereas this total consideration amount is disputed and it is stated by plaintiff/respondent no. 1 that consideration agreed was Rs. 61 Lacs and not 35 Lacs.
19. Now let us discuss the rights of the agreement purchaser who had entered into an oral agreement to sell. It has to be assessed whether this person can avail the benefit of Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act.
20. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is hereinunder:-
"Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 12 of 24 already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that [***] where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance there.]
21. The most important limb of Section 53- A is the pre-existence of the contract; there should be a contract and;
(a) It must be for consideration,
(b) It must be in writing and signed by the transferor,
(c) The terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty.
Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 13 of 24 As to part-performance:-
(a) the transferee should have taken possession of the property, or
(b) the transferee being already in possession should continue in possession and should have done some act in furtherance of the contract, e.g. payment of different rent or the spending of money, because the possession may not be exclusively referable to the agreement.
22. From the above discussion, it is clear that the payment of Bayana/advance money is not condition precedent for availing benefit u/s 53-A of Transfer of Property Act. In order to avail this benefit there has to be an agreement in writing and after amendment in the year 2001 in Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, the same has to be compulsory registered.
23. In judgment Mool Chand Bakhru & Anr Vs. Rohan & Ors (2002) 2 SCC 612 relied upon by respondent no. 1, it was held "Point for consideration in this appeal is as to whether a person (claiming to be a proposed vendee) can protect his possession of an immovable property pm plea of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act on the basis of an oral agreement, the terms of which have not been reduced in writing. Held, prior written agreement is the sine qua non for the Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 14 of 24 applicability of equitable doctrine of part performance contained under Section 53-A of the Act."
24. The respondent no. 1 has also relied upon Sunil Kapoor (Supra) & Sudhir Sabharwal (Supra) which has also been relied by Ld Trial Court which is very much clear on this point. In both these judgments, it is stated that even it the agreement purchaser has filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell but that does not have any bearing on the suit for ejectment filed by landlord against tenant. Again at the risk of repetition, it is stated that there was no agreement in writing between father of the plaintiff and appellant herein with respect to selling the suit premises. In the aforesaid two judgments, the Hon'ble High Court has gone to the extent of saying that even if a suit for specific performance is decreed, even then the agreement purchaser does not get any right as on that day. The right accrues only when a conveyance deed is executed in favour of the agreement purchaser.
25. As far as the judgment relied upon by Ld counsel for apellant i.e. R. Kanthimathi & Anr (Supra) is concerned in this case written agreement to sell was executed between the parties but in the present case there is no agreement in writing.
Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 15 of 24 Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act clearly provides that written agreement is sine qua non for invoking provision of Section 53-A which is not the case herein. Therefore, this judgment is not applicable to the case at hand.
26. The plea of the Ld counsel for appellant that since the SLP against dismissal of the suit for specific performance by Hon'ble High Court is pending, no order can be passed in this file is totally misconceived and is liable to be turned down. In the judgment of Sunil Kapoor (Supra) Hon'ble High Court had refused to stay the suit for ejectment on the ground that suit for specific performance was pending. In view of discussion made above, it is observed that the appellant has no independent right as an agreement purchaser in the suit property.
27. The other argument of the Ld counsel for appellant herein is with respect to the issues framed on 29.04.2016. Ld counsel for appellant has brought the attention of this court towards the issues framed by Ld Trial Court after passing order on application under Order XII rule 6 CPC which has been challenged by way of present appeal.
28. Five issues were framed. Ld counsel for appellant has argued that issue no. 4 & 5 which have been framed shows that trial is required in the present case. Issue No. 4 is Whether Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 16 of 24 present suit is not maintainable ? Issue No. 5 is Whether present suit is not having any cause of action ? She has relied upon State Bank of India Vs. Midland Industries & Ors AIR 1988 Delhi 153. As far as this judgment is concerned, it was suit for recovery by bank and certain preliminary objections were taken which were stated to be very material which would go to the root of the suit, however, in the present case preliminary objections are with respect to cause of action and locus standi which do not form any significance in view of the fact that since the son of the landlord has filed the suit for ejectment, cause of action is disclosed in the plaint and he being the son of the landlord who had died intestate is one of the co-owner of the property. It is a very settled proposition of law that even a co-owner can maintain a suit for eviction.
29. Support in this regard is taken from M/s. India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & Ors. Vs. Bhagabandel Agarwalla (dead ) by Lrs. And Ors. AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1321, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "one of the co-owner can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the Co-owners and this principle was based on doctrine of agency. One co-owner filing a suit for eviction against the tenant does so, on his own behalf in his own right and also Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 17 of 24 as an agent of the other co-owners. The consent of other co-owners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that the other co-owners were not agreeable to eject the tenant. The objection if any could have been taken by the other co-owner which is not the case herein" .
30. Therefore, this judgment cannot be said to be applicable as no such preliminary objection has been raised in the present case which would have gone to the root of the matter.
31. From the reading of the plaint as well as written statement and in view of the fact that before framing the issues vide a detailed order, Ld Trial Court had partly decreed the suit in respect of the possession u/O XII Rule 6 CPC which is under challenge before this court, it appears that issues no. 4 & 5 were framed inadvertently by the Ld Trial Court and they were insignificant, however, framing of these issues by Ld Trial Court cannot give any advantage to the appellant herein which he is not entitled to. Since this is not subject matter before this court, therefore, this court cannot on its own strike down these issues in the present appeal as they are not under challenge. However, contention of counsel for appellant that in view of framing of issue no. 4 & 5 the application under Order XII Rule Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 18 of 24 6 CPC could not have been allowed, is irrelevant and is liable to be set aside.
32. Now coming to the order XII Rule 6 CPC, Under Order XII Rule 6 (1) CPC, specifically provides "
"Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions".
33. Ld counsel for appellant has relied upon some judgments with respect to judgments on admission which are discussed herein as under :
In Razia Begum Vs Sahebzadi Anwar Begum & Ors AIR 1958 SC 886, suit of declaration was filed for declaring the defendant as legally wedded wife. The facts in Raziz Begum (Supra) were completely different from the case in hand. Therefore, this judgment cannot be said to be applicable Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 19 of 24 to the present case.
34. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that judgment which is having the same facts can only be relied upon. Support in respect of this proposition is fallen from Padma Sundara Rao & Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors (20020 3 SCC 533 wherein it was held that:-
"Courts should not place reliance on discussion without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the fact of a particular case."
Reliance is also placed upon Herrington Vs British Railways Board (1992) 2 WLR 537 wherein it was held that:-
"one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases."
35. In Ramsurat Devi Vs Satraji Kuer & Ors AIR 1975 Patna 168, appeal was filed against a judgment in a partition suit wherein a complete trial had taken place. This judgment contains a passing reference on admissions and this also cannot said to be applicable to the case in hand as no trial has Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 20 of 24 taken place in case before this court. Any passing reference on admissions cannot said to be binding on another set of facts. Hence, this judgment is also not applicable.
36. In Western Coalfields Ltd Vs M/s Swati Industries AIR 2003 Bombay 309, the ratio of this case is that pleadings are not be separately read but has to read as a whole. Ratio of this case is not disputed with respect to the admission, however, that suit was for recovery of money and it is not explained by counsel for appellant, however, this judgment is applicable to the case in hand.
37. In Vaijayanti Vs Chandrakant 2007 (4) ALLMR 593, the ratio of this judgment is when an admission cannot be found even on discreate, recourse, order XII Rule 6 CPC was impermissible. The ratio of this case is not at all disputed. However, it does not apply to case in hand before the court.
38. In Lalita Sahoo & Ors Vs. Rania Das & Ors AIR 2004 Orissa 152, it was held that "considering contention of the plaintiffs-petitioners and the abovenoted reasons assigned by Ld Civil Judgde, this Court finds that the impugned order does not suffer from illegality or jurisdictional error. Since the defendant no. 1 has pleaded ouster of the plaintiffs and thereby claims right, title and possession over the suit land, exclusively to herself therefore, there cannot be any decree of permanent injunction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC when different issues arising in the suit are yet to be decided.
Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 21 of 24 The ratio of this judgment pointed out above is not disputed, however, the facts of the case are completely different and hence this judgment is also not applicable.
39. Now coming to the facts of the case in hand. Plaintiff had stated that he is the owner of the suit premises in para 1 of the plaint. Defendant no. 2 i.e. appellant herein had denied the same and had stated that plaintiff is only one of the LR of Sh A.K. Tandon and his sister Sonia Singh is the other LRs who is not a party in the suit. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that defendant no. 2 had not disputed the fact that predecessor in interest of the plaintiff i.e. his father was the owner of the suit property. The only defence is that he being only one of the LR could not have maintained this suit. This arguments is misconceived as even co-owner maintain a suit for eviction as has already been discussed in preceding paras. The factum of relationship between father of plaintiff and respondent no. 2 & 3 herein who were defendant no. 1 & 3 in suit before Ld Trial Court is not disputed. It is stated in para no. 2 of the written statement filed by appellant herein that Duncan Industries and Duncan Tea were tenants till 31.03.2006 and Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 22 of 24 thereafter in the month of April, he had given amount of Rs. 5 Lacs to the father of the plaintiff out of total consideration amount of Rs. 35 Lacs towards purchase of the suit property. This paragraphs clearly says that the relationship was admitted. Perusal of license agreement shows that Duncan Industries had taken the suit property only for the residence of the appellant herein. The terms of tenancy had admittedly ended between Duncan Industries and father of the plaintiff on 31.03.2006. The appellant herein had no interest in the property independently as already discussed and he being the employee of the Duncan company was residing there. The scope and rights of agreement purchaser have already discussed above and it has been held that he had no right in that capacity. Therefore, it is proved that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant and tenancy has been terminated on 31.03.2006. The rent of Rs. 9990/- per month given to the father of the plaintiff by Duncan company is also admitted. All three ingredients required for allowing the application Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC have been satisfied.
40. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the impugned judgment and decree does not suffer from any perversity or infirmity. Thus the impugned Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 23 of 24 judgment and decree dated 29.04.2016is upheld and appeal is hereby dismissed.
Trial court record be sent back to concerned court along with the copy of the order.
Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in the open ( VANDANA JAIN)
court on 12.04.2018 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-07
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Ashwani Kumar Verma Vs. Ankush Kumar Tandon & Ors Page no. 24 of 24