Alka Arora vs Nisha Automobiles And Ors.
2001 Latest Caselaw 1800 Del

JUDGMENT

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

1. Mrs. Alka Arora, hereinafter described as the plaintiff, has filed the present suit for possession of the property bearing No. S-9, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi and also for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents, or assigns from parting with possession of transferring, alienating or sub-letting the tenanted portion of the property in dispute referred to above.

2. The facts alleged are that plaintiff is the owner/landlord of the property. Defendants 2 and 3 are the partner of defendant No. 1. They had taken the suit premises on the pretext of running the motorcycle showroom and accessories in 1998 on basis of an agreement of 16th May, 1998. The monthly rent settled was Rs. 50,000/-. The defendants are alleged to have not paid the rent from March 1999. It is alleged that defendants had issued for different cheques dated 10.11.1998, 10.12.1998, 10.5.1999 and 20.4.2000. They were not encashed as defendants were not having sufficient balance in their account. The tenancy of the defendants was terminated and suit for possession and for an injunction referred to above has been filed.

3. On behalf of the defendants Shri Sanjay Chaudhary had put in appearance. But on 24th April, 2001 this court had proceeded ex parte against the defendants. The plaintiff was permitted to lead evidence by filing of the affidavit.

4. In support of the same the plaintiff has filed here affidavit supporting her case that the premises has been taken on rent vide agreement Ex. P2. The rent stated was Rs. 50,000/- per month and has only been paid up till March 1999. Four cheques are referred to above are sworn to have been issued but not encashed. It is stated that notice was served terminating the contractual tenancy. Copies of the same have been filed as Ex. P4 along with postal receipts and postal acknowledgement up to Ex. P22.

5. The agreement between the parties has been placed on the record which is Ex. P2. As per the plaintiff herself it was a tenancy that had been created since rent is more than Rs. 3500/- per month the provision of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 will not apply to the premises.

6. Ex. P3 is copy of the notice purported to have been served dated 19th July, 2000. The contractual tenancy was terminated by 15th September, 2000 because as per premises of the tenancy it is alleged that month of the tenancy commenced from 16th to 15th of the next month. The postal acknowledgement Ex. P8 to P11 clearly show that the notice had been served. In the absence of any other fact to show that monthly tenancy ended on any other day, it necessary follows that contractual tenancy was validly determined.

7. Once the contractual tenancy had been determined the plaintiff has a right to claim possession of the premises.

8. In addition to that the plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from parting with possession of the property in question or alienating the same of sub-letting the same to any other person.

9. Since plaintiff had let the premises to the defendants indeed they do not have any right to sublet or part with possession of the same. For these reasons suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs ex parte for possession of the property S-9, Lower Ground Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi, as shown in the site plan Ex. P1. Defendants are further restrained from parting with possession of the property, transferring, alienating or sub-letting the same to any third person.