Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors. vs Roshan Lal Makkar on 2 December, 2010
Author: Indermeet Kaur
6
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment : 02.12.2010
+ R.S.A.No.104/2010 & C.M.9923/2010
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...........Appellants
Through: Mr.Rajinder Nischal, Advocate.
Mr.G.R.Bharda, Sr.Supdt.,
Delhi East, Delhi.
Versus
ROSHAN LAL MAKKAR ..........Respondent
Through: Mr.Mukul Dhawan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral)
1. This second appeal has impugned the judgment and decree
dated 12.03.2010 which has endorsed the finding of the trial judge
dated 23.1.2010 wherein on an application under Order 12 Rule 6
of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Code') the suit of the plaintiff seeking possession of the suit
premises bearing property no.X/978, Ground Floor, Chand Mohalla,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi had been decreed in his favour.
2. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of the
disputed premises. He had vide a registered leased deed dated
08.04.2004 given the premises on rent for a period of five years to
the appellant which lease had expired on 7.4.2009 by efflux of
time. Legal notice dated 16.4.2008 had been issued to the
defendant terminating his tenancy with effect from 8.4.2009
RSA No.104/2010 Page 1 of 3
determining the tenancy of the appellant/defendant with the date
of expiry of the lease i.e. with effect from 7.4.2009. Present suit
was filed on 24.4.2009. The admitted rate of rent was Rs.16000/-.
These admissions were categorically made by the defendant in his
written statement. Decree under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code had
followed. The judgment of the trial judge was endorsed by the first
appellate court.
3. On the last date, matter had been adjourned in order that the
parties could amicably settle their dispute. It is pointed out by
learned counsel for the respondent that after the suit had been
filed, on 11.5.2010 a communication had been addressed to the
plaintiff wherein the appellant had agreed to pay enhanced rent at
the rate of Rs.51000-55000/- per month which was accepted by the
appellant vide his communication dated 21.5.2010. Matter had
thereafter been adjourned in order that the contents of this
communication could fructify. However, today on the instructions
from the department, learned counsel for the appellant states that
the department is not willing to pay more than Rs.38, 837/- per
month plus the municipal taxes. This proposal is not acceptable to
the respondent/plaintiff.
4. Arguments had been heard on merits.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that a
substantial question of law has arisen as the lease agreement
contained an arbitration clause and without resorting to the
arbitration proceedings, appellant could not straightway file this
second appeal. Arguments have been negatived. Learned counsel
for the respondent has placed reliance upon ILR (2009) II Delhi
M/s National Textile Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sh.Ashval
RSA No.104/2010 Page 2 of 3
Vadheraa wherein the bench of this court had held that where the
written lease deed had come to an end by efflux of time, the
arbitration clause also perished along with termination of the lease
deed. Admittedly, this lease deed had expired on 7.4.2009,
arbitration clause also stood perished. No other argument has been
urged.
6. No question of law much less any substantial question of law
has arisen. Appeal is dismissed in limine.
C.M.9923/2010 (for stay)
In view of the judgment passed in appeal, interim order
passed on 24.5.2010 stands vacated.
Application is disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
DECEMBER 02, 2010
rb
