Inder Kumar Kapur & Ors. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
1998 Latest Caselaw 1083 Del

ORDER

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.

1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for eviction of the defendant from the 1st and 2nd floor of the building bearing No. 3, Community Centre, Basantlok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises) and for recovery of Rs. 28,40,000/- as mesne profits besides pendente lite and future mesne profits @ Rs. 5,68,000/- per month.

2. According to the case set up by the plaintiffs, the defendant took the suit premises on rent @ 6 Rs. 60,421/- per month for a period of three years commencing from 4-5-1990 vide unregistered lease deed dated 7-6-1993. By the notice dated 28-3-1996, the plaintiffs terminated the defendant's tenancy w.e.f. 3.5.1996. Despite service of the notice the defendant did not vacate the suit premises. The plaintiffs have also claimed mesne profits @ Rs. 5,68,000/- per month.

3. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the suit premises are governed by the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and as such the suit is barred under Sec. 15 of the Act and that the notice to quit dated 28-3-1996 does not satisfy the requirements of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

4. The plaintiffs have filed the IA No. 10129/97 for Judgment upon admissions. The application has been opposed by the defendant. It is undisputed that the suit premises were let out to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs. 60,421/- for a period of three years commencing from 4-5-1990 vide unregistered sale deed dated 7-6-1993. In view of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, since the lease was for a period exceeding one year, it could only have been extended by a registered instrument. In the absence of registered instrument, the lease shall be deemed to be "lease from month to month". Learned counsel for the defendant contended that the defendant company is a registered company under the Companies Act and its total share capital is owned by the Central Government and inasmuch as the suit promises were let out to the defendant company the same are governed by the provisions of the Act and the present suit is arred under Section 15 of the said Act. Strong reliance was placed on the decisions in S.R.B. Gaikwad Vs. Union of India and Mrs. Komalam Vardarajan Vs. The Union of India and Another, in support; of the said contention. In my opinion, the very basis of the said submission is fallacious. Section 2(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act defines "public premises" as under :-

"Public Premises" means-

(1) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government, and includes any such premises which have been placed by that Government, whether before or after the commencement of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Amendment Act, 1980, under the control of the Secretariat of either House of Parliament for providing residential accommodation to any member of the staff of that Secretariat;

(2) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of:

(i) any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), in which not less than fifty-one per cent of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government or any company which is a subsidiary (within the meaning of that Act) of the first mentioned company,

(ii) any corporation (not being a company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or a local authority) established by or under a Central Act and owned or controlled by the Central Government,

(iii) any University established or incorporated by any Central Act,

(iv) any Institute Incorporated by the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 (59 of 1961),

(v) any Board of Trustees constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (38 of 1963),

(vi) the Bhakra Management Board constituted under Section 79 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (31 of 1966), and that Board as and when renamed as the Bhakra-Beas Management Board under sub-section (6) of Section 80 of that Act; and

(3) in relation to the Union Territory of Delhi,

(i) any premises belonging to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, or any Municipal, Committee or notified area committee, and

(ii) any premises belonging to the Delhi Development Authority, whether such premises are in the possession of, or leased out by, the said Authority;"

5. The Act provides for a speedy remedy in favour of the Government to obtain possession of any such promises covered by any of the three categories, when the same is found to be in unauthorized occupation. Section 2(g) defines unauthorized occupation in relation to public premises as follows:

"unauthorized occupation", in relation to any public promises, means the occupation by any person of the public Premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever."

6. Section 15 of the Act prohibits taking any action in any Court inter alia in respect of any unauthorized occupant. The relationship of the Government when it is a lessee qua the owner of the premises is that of a tenant and landlord. Thus, the provisions of the Act would have no application to the facts of the present suit. That being so, the decisions in S.R.B. Gaikwad Vs. Union of India and Mrs. Komalam Vardarajan Vs. Union of India and another (supra) do not help the defendant.

7. It is undisputed that the notice to quit dated 28-3-1996 was served on the defendant. It is also undisputed that the defendant's tenancy commenced on 4th day of every month. By the said notice, the defendant's tenancy was terminated on the mid night of 3rd May, 1996. Thus, the notice dated 28-3-1996 satisfies the requirements by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. I, therefore, hold that the defendant's tenancy was validly terminated by the said notice and so the defendant is liable to be evicted from the suit promises. In view of admission of facts in the pleadings, the plaintiff is entitled to have judgment upon admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it just and expedient to grant sufficient time to the defendant to vacate the suit premises.

8. It is therefore, ordered and decreed that the defendant shall deliver 'vacant' and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff on or before 1st May, 1999. As regards the recovery of mesne profits, it is directed that an inquiry be held under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC to determine the rate and quantum thereof. A decree be drawn up accordingly.

IA stands disposed of.