Delhi High Court
Sonia Singh vs Manmohini Kaur & Ors on 14 January, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.21/2011
% 14th January, 2011
SONIA SINGH ...... Appellant
Through: Ms. Anisha Banerji and
Ms. Mrinalini Gupta
Advocates.
VERSUS
MANMOHINI KAUR & ORS ...... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM No.614/2011 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CM No. 613/2011 (Delay)
The delay in filing the appeal ordinarily would not have been
condoned as the delay is of 238 days without sufficient cause.
Considering the peculiar facts of this case, however the delay is
condoned subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
RFA No. 21/2011
1. The present appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and
decree dated 27.1.2010 decreeing the suit for possession and mesne
profits of the respondents no. 1 to 3 landlords. The peculiar aspect
however is that the appellant is not the tenant and the appellant was
not even a party to the suit. In fact, the appellant sought impleadment
under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the suit which application was dismissed
by the trial court and whereafter this court vide its order dated
22.3.2010, in CM (Main) 42/2010, dismissed the challenge thereto. The
present appellant also was unsuccessful before the Supreme Court
which dismissed the SLP vide its order dated 19.4.2010 against the
order of this court dated 22.3.2010. It is, therefore, quite clear that
first of all, the appellant has absolutely no locus standi to file this
appeal. She was neither a party to the suit and nor at any time the
landlord acknowledged her as the tenant. Merely because, the
appellant is an estranged wife of an employee of the company which
employee was residing in the property let out to the company would
not mean that any legal right will accrue to the appellant to claim any
rights in the tenanted premises.
2. The company/respondent no.4 appeared in the trial court and
prayed that decree for possession be passed because the appellant
was illegally refusing to vacate the property. In fact, the consequence
of the appellant refusing to vacate the premises has been that the
respondent no.4 company which was the original tenant, has been
fastened with monetary liability for payment of mesne-profits with
respect to the suit premises.
3. In order to decree a suit for possession and mesne profits,
the landlord has to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant and
the fact that the tenancy has been terminated by an appropriate notice
under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the premises
falling outside the protection of the Rent Act as the rent is more than
3,500/- per month. The facts are that there was a relationship of
landlord and tenant between the respondent no.4 company herein and
the plaintiffs/respondents no.1 to 3/landlords. The monthly rent was
Rs.15,000/-. The tenancy of the respondent no.4 company was
terminated by legal notice and in fact company appeared in the trial
court and prayed that the decree for eviction be passed. Clearly, there
were no disputed questions of fact which required a trial and the suit
has therefore rightly been decreed for possession. In fact, the suit has
also been decreed against the respondent no.4 company for arrears of
rent at Rs.15,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.11.2008 along with interest at
10% per annum, although, the company was not occupying the
premises and the property was being occupied by the appellant, that
too against the wish of the tenant/company.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant sought to place reliance
upon B.P.Achala Anand Vs. S. Appi Reddy and Anr. (2005) 3 SCC
313 to canvass the proposition that an estranged wife has a right to
residence in the property of the husband. This judgment in my opinion
has no application because even the husband in the present case has
no right to stay in the property, firstly because the tenant was the
company and not the husband of the appellant and secondly, the
tenancy being outside the Rent Act, the same was appropriately
terminated and therefore no rights remain in the property either of the
respondent no.4 company, and assuming the husband has any rights,
or of the husband. In view of the above, there is no merit in the
present appeal. The present appeal is therefore dismissed leaving the
parties to bear their own costs.
JANUARY 14, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
ib
