Nb Singh (Huf) vs M/S Perfexa Solutions Pvt. Ltd
2009 Latest Caselaw 2343 Del

                                                            REPORTABLE

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                      I.A. Nos.13634/2007 & 3114/2009
                             in CS(OS) 2311/2006


                                         Date of Decision: May 29, 2009


       NB SINGH (HUF)               ..... Plaintiff
                     Through Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Advocate
                     with Mr. P.C.Sen & Mr. Rohit, Advocates

                       versus


       M/S PERFEXA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD       ..... Defendant
                     Through Mr. Keshav Dayal, Senior Advocate
                     with Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.     Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
       judgment? Yes
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? Yes

REKHA SHARMA, J.

These are two applications, one filed by the plaintiff under

Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred

to as the "Code") for a decree of possession on the basis of alleged

admissions made by the defendant in the written statement, and the

other by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code for

rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit property is an

agricultural land and that a civil suit in respect of such property is

barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.

The facts relevant for the disposal of the two applications are as

under:-

The plaintiff is the owner of land measuring 3.1 acres at No.1,

Kapashera Estate, New Delhi (Farm House) with constructions

thereon, consisting of a dwelling unit on the ground and first floor, a

swimming pool and other amenities, such as, lawns, servant quarters,

flower and vegetable plantation etc. The aforementioned farm-house

was leased out by the plaintiff to the defendant-company for the

residence of its Managing Director for a period of two years at a

monthly rental of Rs.1,60,000/- (excluding electricity and water

charges) vide Lease Agreement dated September 10, 2004. The lease

was terminated by the plaintiff by means of a legal notice dated

September 25, 2006 and in terms of the said notice, the tenancy of the

defendant expired on October 31, 2006. Despite service of notice of

termination, the defendant failed to handover the vacant possession of

the suit property and that led to the plaintiff filing the present suit

praying for a decree of possession of the suit property and for a

decree for a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- being the arrears of rent for the

months of September and October, 2006 @ Rs.1,60,000/- per month

along with pendentelite and future interest @ 24% per annum. The

plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of future mesne profits from

November 01, 2006 till handing over peaceful vacant possession of

the suit property @ Rs.3,20,000/- per month or at any other higher

market rate of similar premises situated in the locality.

The defendant in its written statement filed in response to the

plaint, amongst others, has taken a preliminary objection to the very

maintainability of the suit on the ground that the suit property is an

agricultural land and Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954

prohibits a Civil Court to take cognizance of any suit, application or

proceedings in respect of a matter pertaining to agricultural land.

The defendant has also taken an alternative plea that the suit property

being agricultural land, the law requires termination of lease of such

land by giving six months' notice expiring with the end of the year of

tenancy and that the plaintiff having not given any such notice, the

suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground if not on any other

ground. The defendant has also set-up a case that the lease between

the parties was extended for a further period of 24 months

commencing from September 15, 2006 upto September 14, 2008 at an

enhanced rate of Rs.1,75,000/- per month and hence, the termination

of lease prior thereto was inconsequential.

Having regard to the pleadings of the parties, the question that

arises for consideration is whether the provisions of the Delhi Land

Reforms Act, 1954 are applicable to the suit property and if not,

whether the pleadings as contained in the written statement

constitute admissions on the part of the defendant so as to entitle the

plaintiff for a decree of possession?

What is an agricultural land in terms of the Delhi Land Reforms

Act, 1954 is defined in Section 3(13) of the said Act. The relevant

extract of the same runs as under:-

"3 Definitions- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-

1. .................................

2. .................................

3. .................................

..................................

13- "land" except in sections 23 and 24, means land held or occupied for purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry

including pisciculture and poultry farming and includes -

(a). Buildings appurtenant thereto,

(b). village abadis,

(c). grovelands,

(d). lands for village pasture or land covered by water and used for growing singharas and other produce or land in the bed of a river and used for casual or occasional cultivation,

but does not include -

Land occupied by building in belts or areas adjacent to Delhi town, which the Chief Commissioner may by a notification in the Official Gazette declare as an acquisition thereto;

14..................................................."

The defendant in its written statement has not denied that the

suit property was leased out to it vide lease agreement dated

September 10, 2004. Rather it is the stand of the defendant that after

it received communication purporting to terminate the lease deed

dated September 10, 2004, it approached the plaintiff to implement

the extension clause in the lease deed and that consequent thereto,

the lease was extended for a further period of 24 months from

September 15, 2006 till September 14, 2008 on the mutually agreed

terms by the parties. In other words, the defendant admits execution

of the lease deed between the parties and insofar as the contents of

the lease deed are concerned, though it describes the suit property as

a farm-house, but it is clearly mentioned therein that there are

constructions raised on it with all amenities, lawns, swimming pool

and servant quarters etc. It is also mentioned therein that it has been

leased out to the defendant-company for the residence of its

Managing Director Shri T.S.Sandhu for a period of two years

commencing from September 10, 2004 which could be renewed on

mutually agreed terms.

In view of the nature of construction raised on the suit property

consisting of a dwelling unit on the ground floor and first floor, a

swimming pool and other amenities, such as, lawns, servant quarters

etc. and there being no denial of the same from the side of the

defendant, it was contended by learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff

that the suit property no longer retained the character of an

agricultural land. It was further contended that in view of the fact

that the suit property was being used by the Managing Director of the

defendant-company for his residence on as high a rent as

Rs.1,60,000/- per month, it would be a total misnomer and a travesty

of justice to call the suit property as agricultural land in terms of the

Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also

placed reliance upon photocopy of the sanctioned site plan of the suit

property, photocopy of the completion certificate issued by the

Municipal Corporation of Delhi to the plaintiff dated May 04, 1990,

photocopy of the electricity bills issued by BSES Rajdhani Power

Limited in the name of the plaintiff and also the photocopy of

house-tax calculations whereby the suit property was assessed to

house-tax by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. On the basis of

these documents, it was argued that if the suit property was an

agricultural land, there was no need to get the plan sanctioned for the

construction raised thereon or for obtaining completion certificate

from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and there was also no reason

to get the property assessed to house-tax.

On the other hand, learned Senior counsel appearing for the

defendant in support of its case that the suit property is agricultural

land, placed on record Khasra Girdawari of the suit property for the

year 2006-2007 and Khatauni of the year 2002-2003 wherein the

plaintiff has been described as a Bhumidhar.

Before I proceed further, it needs to be noticed that this Court

in the case of Ram Lubbaya Kapoor Versus J R Chawla and

Others, 1986 RLR 432 has held that any land before it can be

termed as "land" for the purpose of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954

must be held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture,

horticulture or animal husbandry etc. and if the land is not used for

said purposes, it ceases to be land for the purpose of Delhi Land

Reforms Act, 1954. It has been further held that a Bhumidhar is

bound not only to retain possession of his land but also use it for

specified purposes at all material times if he is to continue to be a

Bhumidhar. A similar view was taken by this Court in Narain Singh

and Another Versus Financial Commissioner in WP(C) No.670 of

1995 decided on July 14, 2008.

It is manifest from the above judgments of this Court that a

property ceases to be an agricultural property if it is not used for

agricultural purposes. In the present case, as noticed above,

defendant in its written statement has admitted that the suit property

is a farm-house which consists of a dwelling unit on its ground floor

and first floor, a swimming pool and servant quarter etc. The

defendant has further admitted that the suit property was leased out

to it for the residence of its Managing Director Shri T.S.Sandhu. It is

also admitted that the rental of the suit property at the time it was

leased out to defendant was Rs.1,60,000/- per month and it is being

continuously used by its Managing Director Shri T.S.Sandhu for his

residence.

The aforesaid facts coupled with the fact that the plaintiff got

the plan sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for

raising construction on the so-called agricultural land, obtained

completion certificate from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and is

paying house-tax as assessed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi

lead me to no other conclusion except to the conclusion that the suit

property, by no stretch of imagination, can be called an agricultural

land. The defendant-company who had taken premises on lease for

the residence of its Managing Director on a hefty rent of Rs.1,60,000/-

per month is estopped from contending that the suit property is an

agricultural land covered by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.

Of-course, learned counsel for the defendant sought to place reliance

on the revenue records to make good the submission that the plaintiff

continues to be a Bhumidhar in such records but in the facts and

circumstances, as noticed above, the description of the plaintiff as a

Bhumidhar is of no consequence.

Having regard to what has been noticed above, I hold, that the

defendant has no right to continue in the suit property after the

termination of its tenancy on October 31, 2006 and in any case not

after September 14, 2008 on which date, as per the defendant's own

case, the renewed period of lease had also expired.

For the foregoing reasons, the application of the plaintiff under

Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code being I.A. No.13634 of 2007 is accepted

and consequently, a decree of possession in respect of the suit

property, i.e. Farm House No.1, Village Kapashera, Delhi (as shown in

site plan annexed with the plaint) is hereby passed in favour of the

plaintiff. The application of the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of

the Code being I.A. No.3114 of 2009 is dismissed as devoid of any

merit. The suit is kept pending for determining the question of mesne

profit payable by the defendant.

List the suit for directions on July 10, 2009.

The applications stand disposed of.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

May 29, 2009 GN