Delhi District Court
Sh. Y.N. Bhargava vs Assocham on 4 September, 2010
Page 1 of 9
IN THE COUT OF SHRI SUNIL K. AGGARWAL: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
(CENTRAL): 16, DELHI.
SUIT No. 232/07
SH. Y.N. BHARGAVA
S/o Pandit Shridhar Lal Bhargava
R/o pilikothi,Jaiganj,
Aligarh (U.P.) .....Plaintiff
VERSUS
ASSOCHAM
Regd. Office at
1, community Centre,
Zamroodpur, Kailash Colony,
New Delhi - 110018. .....Defendant.
Order on application U.o 12 Rule 6 CPC.
1.This proposes to dispose off an application dated 27.03.2009 of the plaintiff for passing judgment in his suit for possession on the basis of admission in pleadings. It is stated that defendant is a lessee in the property bearing plot No. 1, Block No. 1, 47 Prithviraj Road, New Delhi-1 on month to month basis @ Rs. 58,333.33 p.m. as rent. The tenancy was terminated vide notices dated 31.07.2007 and 01.08.2007 which find acknowledgment in reply dated 30.08.2007. The defendant have not produced legally admissible document in support of their claim of lease of suit property being for a period of 34 years. The lease created through an unregistered document is unenforceable and renders it to be monthly tenancy terminable by giving 15 days notice. In view of admitted facts therefore, there is no need to take th suit to trial as it can be decided on the admissions of parties itself.
2. By filing reply to the application, defendant has termed it to be misconceived and not maintainable. It claimed to be in possession of the Cont...
Page 2 of 9suit property since last 40 years. At the time of renewal in 1995, a detailed agreement was executed between the parties thereby creating a lease for another 34 years towards which consideration of Rs. 20 Lacs was paid to the plaintiff. The term regarding rate of rent was modified vide supplementary agreement dated 06.07.2006. It has been denied that tenancy of suit property has been terminated w.e.f 14.09.2007. The plaintiff is stated to be acting contrary to the terms of contract. It is refuted that notice dated 31.07.2007 has been served or that it is a case of monthly tenancy. The lease of property was for a period for 34 years which period is yet to expire. Dismissal of application thus has been urged.
3. Case of the plaintiff is that defendant is a tenant in suit property comprising 0.8 acres of land together with residential building and other structures on month to month basis for residential purposes only on an annual rent of Rs. 7,00,000/-. Defendant had represented to use it as residence of its President as th property could be used only for a residential purpose. During the inspection on 11.06.03 the officers of Land & Development office found defendant to be running their office in the suit preoperty in violation of condition of perpetual lease. The said user is also contrary to Master plan,Zonal Development Plan and Lutyris Building Zone Byelaws and Rules. On receipt of notice dated 10.07.03 from L & CO Plaintiff asked defendant to immediately remedy the breaches who assured to do the needful. However Plaintiff received further notices dated 08.05.06, 18.07.06 and 04.12.06 from L & DO pointing out continuous misuse of property. Plaintiff again requested defendant to make amends and also sent reply to L & DO on the basis of information supplied by defendant that the suit property was being used as a transit house by the President of Association. Plaintiff finally received notice dated 04.07.07 from L & DO directing it to remove the breaches within 30 days and show Cont...
Page 3 of 9cause show cause why the Principal lessor shall not exercise the right of re- entry.
4 Now that the Plaintiff's right and interest over the property was getting jeopardized and defendant was not towing the terms of perpetual leave and Government norms, he served legal notice dated 31.07.07 and 01.08.07 on defendant determining lease of the suit property and for handing over vacant possession to him within 15 days and not later than 31.08.07. Defendant sent reply dated 30.08.07 reiterating that the suit property had been used as transit house as also for holding meetings by the President of Association. Plaintiff has sought to reserve right to recover damages for use and occupation of suit property from the defendant after termination of tenancy at market rate by way of separate suit.
5 In Written statement defendant claims to be no profit organization of 1920 for promoting trade, industry and commerce in India. It does not have any share capita. The suit property is in its occupation since last 40 years and is being used as transit house of President in office for residential purposes. The Presidency is rotated every year to various parts of country. In 1995 the terms of lease were renewed and a detailed contract was executed between the parties. Plaintiff thereby has agreed to transfer the propety to defendant for a period of 34 years for consideration towards which a sum of Rs. 20 lacs was paid to Plaintiff. Defendant also has not violated any of the terms of agreement dated 10.07.95, therefore, Plaintiff has n o right to terminate the tenancy and to evict the defendant. By way of supplementary agreement dated 06.07.06 the rent of suit property was enhanced to Rs. 7,00,000 /- per annum to be increased by 15 % after every three years wef 01.09.06 and rescheduled the date of payment of rent. It is contended that defendant has its office at 1, community Centre, Zamroodpur, Kailash Colony, New Delhi and all Cont...
Page 4 of 9its activities are conducted from there. The suit property is used for residence of President who also hold various official meetings inter-alia with Minister, M.Ps , Government officials, Diplomats, Industrialists etc to which no commercial aspect can be attached. Notice purportedly U/s 106 of the Transfer of properties Act is not tenable.
6. Defendant denied that suit premises are on month to month lease. The same were in fact leased to the defendant on annual rent. Defendant denied having misused the property or jeopardize the interest of Plaintiff therein. It has been controverted that defendant is liable to pay damages @ Rs. 10 lacs per month or that Plaintiff is entitled to reserve its right to claim the same by way of separate suit.
7 Replication is reiteration of the plaint and denial of the adverse contents of written statement.
8 Arguments on behalf of the parties have been heard. I have also minutely perused the file. The background of the ratio in Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. Vs United Bank of India (2007) 7 Sec 120, it has been held by a Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Prem Narain Mishra Vs Fairly Brothers Export & Import RFA (OS) No. 1/05 decided on 12.07.07 (Manu/DE/8255 / 2007) that the objective and purpose of enacting the provision like Or. 12 Rule 6 CPC is to enable the court to pronounce judgment on admission when these are sufficient to entitle the Plaintiff a decree. Such a provision is enacted to render speedy judgments and save the parties from going through rigmarole of protracted trial. The admissions can be in the pleadings or otherwise in documents correspondence etc. These can be oral or in writing . The admissions can even be constructive admissions and need not be specific or expressive which can be inferred from the vague and evasive denial in the Written statement while answering specific pleas raised by the Cont...
Page 5 of 9Plaintiff. The admissions can even be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. Reference for the same proposition can be made to Charanjit Lal Mehra Vs Kamal Saroj Mahajan , 118(2005) DLT 396 (SC); Delhi Jal Board Vs Surender P Malik, 2003 (111) AD Delhi 49.
9. The factors requisite for passing judgment on admissions so far as possession of the suit property is concerned , are crystallized hereunder:
a) Existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
b) Rate of rent of suit property o be more than Rs. 3500/-. p.m.
c) Termination of tenancy It now needs examination whether categorical , unambiguous, unequivocal and positive admissions are there in the cse of defendant on the above factors.
10 Relationship There is absolutely no dispute between the parties that relationship between the parties that relationship of landlord and tenant was in existence between them qua the suit property. Although we need not dwell up the question of ownership of property yet it was held in Bhogadi Kanna Babu Vs Vuggina Pydamma Vugging , 2006 (5) SCC 532 that a tenant let into possession cannot deny his landlord's title howsoever defective so long as he was not openly restored the possession of surrendered the premises to him.
11. Rate of Rent :
Admittedly the rent was lastly being paid for the suit property @ Rs. 7,00,000/- p.ai.e Rs.. 58,333.33 p.m. The property as such is out of purview of Delhi Rent Control Act.
12. Termination of lease The defendant has heavily relied upon lease deed dated Cont...
Page 6 of 910.07.95 and supplementary agreement dated 06.07.06. Both are insufficiently stamped and unregistered documents. It cannot be disputed that lease of immovable property from year to year or a yearly rent can be made only by a registered instrument (Sec. 107 of Transfer of Property Act). The documents thus cannot be relied upon much less enforced, even for collateral purpose. The term of lease mentioned in the documents therefore, is redundant . It has been held in M/s. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. Vs B N Chaddha, 133 (2006) DLT 573; GM Enterprises Vs S E M Tian Export and Hotel Pvt. Ltd , 118 (2005) DLT 500 and Singer India Ltd. Vs Amita Gupta, Air 1999 Delhi 377 and Uptron Powertronics Vs G L Rawal, AIR 1999 Delhi.
13. Even if he rent of the suit property paid for period August, 2007 and beyond would not ensure benefit of extension / continuation of tenancy to the defendant in view of the law laid down in Shanti Pandit Devi Vs Shankar Mahew, 2005 RLR 34 and Deluxe stores Vs Allahabad Bank, CS (OS) No. 2300/1999 decided by Hon'ble High Court on 18.04.06. It being a month to month tenancy could have been terminated anytime by the landlord by serving a notice under section 111 (4) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
14. The contention that the defendant had not put the suit property to misuse at any time and therefore, the Plaintiff having become jittery and got notice dated 01.08.07 in anxiety actually to evade the onslaught of L & DO on the suit property is misconceived and updatedable. No doubt the notices repeatedly issued by Land & Development Office gave anxious moments to the Plaintiff, who had earlier sent replies on the basis of representation of the defendant but he did not need any specific reason for termination precipitated by the notice of re-entry by paramount lessor could not hve been brushed off by Cont...
Page 7 of 9him. When the attempts to cause defendant to mend the reported breaches in user of suit property did not work, the landlord was justified in putting the relationship to an end to save the property. No ulterior motive or extraneous material can be discerned in the background.
15. In view of the real , plain and candid admission of facts in the Written statement of defendant , there is no need to delve the parties to undergo the trauma of trial. That would tantamount to negating the provision of order 12 Rule 6 CPC and going against the basic and elementary theory that '' admission of facts need no proof''. All the tree vital ingredients are available in the case in hand. In the eventuality passing of an ejectment order was held proper in Central Bank Vs Lalit Bhargav, 2006 RLR 355.
16. As a corollary of above discussion, the application of Plaintiff is hereby allowed and decree of possession of suit property bearing plot No. 1, block No. 1, 47, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi-01 is passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendant . The defendant is directed to deliver the vacant and peaceful physical possession of suit property unto the Plaintiff by the end of this month.
17. Plaintiff has urged fr leave under order 2 Rule 2 CPC to be able to file the suit for recovery of mesne profits at market rate of the suit property from the date of termination of tenancy till vacation. It was opposed by the defendant. Plaintiff has neither offered any specific reason in the plaint for omitting to claim the relief of recovery of mesne profits in this suit itself nor stated it verbally. Nothing cogent thus has been placed before the court for accommodating the Plaintiff. I will leave it at that. It shall neither preclude th Plaintiff from claiming the stated relief by Cont...
Page 8 of 9separate suit nor he defendant from taking appropriate objection regarding its admissibility .
18 Decree sheet in terms of para 16 be prepared. File be consigned to record room.
Announced (Sunil Kr. Aggarwal) Addl. District Judge (C)-16 Delhi: 04.09.10 Cont...