Delhi High Court
Shri Naresh Kumar Pingolia vs Mahinder Kumar Joshi on 18 April, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 18.04.2011
+ RSA No.66/2011 & CM No.7447/2011
SHRI NARESH KUMAR PINGOLIA ...........Appellant
Through: Mr.Tarun Diwan, Advocate.
Versus
MAHINDER KUMAR JOSHI ...........Respondent.
Through: Nemo.
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)
CM No.7448/2011 (for exemption)
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
RSA No.66/2011 & CM No.7447/2011
1. This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated
30.3.2011 which has endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated
07.5.2010 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking possession
of the suit property i.e. the property bearing No.16/561/C, Ground
Floor, Amrit Kaur Puri, Tank Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi had been
decreed in favour of the plaintiff on his application under Order XII
Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as
„the CPC‟).
2. The plaintiff had filed the aforenoted suit for recovery of
possession of the aforenoted suit property. Defendant had been
inducted as a tenant in December 2004; it was in terms of the
agreement dated 25.02.2008 which was for a limited period of 11
months. Monthly rent was `4500/- excluding electricity and water
charges. Tenancy had come to an end by efflux of time. Legal
notice dated 16.6.2009 served upon the defendant terminating his
tenancy.
3. In the written statement, the service of the legal notice dated
16.6.2009 was denied. It was not in dispute that the parties were
sharing a landlord-tenant relationship. Rate of rent was not
disputed; however, the receipt of the legal notice was disputed.
4. Trial judge had noted that in an earlier suit filed by the
defendant/tenant seeking injunction from dispossession qua the
suit property; the same legal notice dated 16.6.2009 had been
relied upon by the defendant/tenant. He had filed this notice dated
16.6.2009 along with his plaint. That suit had been dismissed as
withdrawn on the statement made by the landlord that he would
not dispossess his tenant without due process of law.
5. Both the courts below had noted these aforenoted facts to
draw a conclusion that a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code
had necessarily to follow in these circumstances. The relationship
of landlord and tenant had been proved; rate of rent was more than
`3500/-; it was admittedly `4500/-; although receipt of legal notice
dated 16.6.2009 had been decreed in the present suit, yet in the
earlier suit filed by the defendant he had relied upon the same
legal notice dated 16.6.2009 for seeking an injunction against his
landlord from dispossessing him without due process of law. In
these circumstances, the impugned judgment had rightly noted
that the receipt of this legal notice cannot be disputed; the
defendant cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time.
6. This is a second appeal. The substantial questions of law
have been formulated on page 7 of the body of the appeal.
Admissions made by the plaintiff are clear and categorical. The
admissions can be made in the "pleadings or otherwise". Today
before this Court the receipt of the legal notice has not been
disputed but it is pointed out that the legal notice does not fulfill
the criteria of a valid legal notice. Attention has been drawn to the
said legal notice dated 16.6.2009. This notice clearly calls upon
the tenant to vacate the suit property and to handover possession
of the same to the plaintiff within 15 days of receipt of this notice
along with damages. Submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant that this notice has not made a reference to termination
of the tenancy is clearly a misinterpretation of the document.
Document had to be read as a whole. The intention of the landlord
is clearly decipherable. It had clearly noted and categorically
stated that the defendant is in unauthorized use and occupation
and he must vacate the suit property within 15 days of the receipt
of the notice.
7. Notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has
to be construed liberally; object of the notice is to inform other
party about the intention of the person issuing a notice; i.e. he
wants the premises back. As long as the notice can be reasonably
understood by a person of ordinary prudence that his tenancy has
been determind and he is to vacate the premises, the notice is fine.
This has been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in FRA
No.341/2007 Inmacs Ltd. Vs. Prema Sinha & Ors.
8. No substantial question of law has arisen. No interference is
called for in the impugned judgment. Appeal as also pending
application is dismissed in limine.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
APRIL 18, 2011
nandan
