Delhi High Court
Venus Sugar Ltd. vs Nishi Chopra on 9 March, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.147/2011
% 9th March, 2011
VENUS SUGAR LTD. ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Bhatia &
Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, Advocates
VERSUS
NISHI CHOPRA ...... Respondent
Through: None.
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)
Caveat No.219/2011
No one appears for the respondent/caveator. Caveat
stands discharged.
RFA No.147/2011
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned
judgment and decree dated 22.11.2010 whereby the suit of the
respondent/plaintiff/landlady for possession and recovery of mesne
profits was decreed with respect to the ground floor of the property
bearing no.C-493, Yojna Vihar, New Delhi.
RFA No.147/2011 Page 1 of 4
2. The fact that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties is not disputed. It is also not disputed that rent
was paid at Rs.12,500/- per month till September, 2006 and thereafter
on account of service of legal notice dated 29.9.2006 rent was
increased to Rs.15,100/- per month and which rent was paid for three
months of October, November and December, 2006. The
respondent/landlady served another notice dated 18.12.2006 for
termination of the tenancy and whereafter, the subject suit for
possession and mesne profits was filed.
3. The notice dated 18.12.2006 was served by registered AD
post and UPC and which documents have been exhibited before the
Trial Court as Ex.PW1/7 (collectively). There is no dispute that the
notice dated 18.12.2006 was sent to the correct address of the
appellant/defendant.
4. Counsel for the appellant argued two main contentions:-
(i) Since the rent was increased after service of notice dated
29.9.2006, a fresh tenancy came into existence at a higher rate of rent
at Rs.15,100/- per month and therefore the suit for possession could
not have been filed.
(ii) The notice dated 18.12.1996 cannot be said to be a notice
whereby the tenancy was said to have been terminated.
5. So far as the first argument is concerned of creation of a
fresh tenancy at an enhanced rent after service of notice dated
29.9.2006, the same is an undisputed fact and also the fact that higher
rent at Rs.15,100/- per month was paid for the months of October,
RFA No.147/2011 Page 2 of 4
November and December. However, it is also an undisputed fact that
thereafter another notice dated 18.12.2006 was served terminating
the tenancy and thereafter there is no acceptance of any rent, much
less enhanced rent higher than Rs.15,100/- from January, 2007
onwards. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is,
therefore, misconceived because the suit is based upon the legal
notice dated 18.12.2006.
6. So far as the second argument that the notice dated
18.12.2006 did not terminate the tenancy, at the first blush, the
argument appears attractive, however, the notice terminating the
tenancy (which is a month to month tenancy) has to be liberally
interpreted because the only object of such notice is to give a 15 days
period for vacation of the premises by the tenant. In fact to ensure
that no technicalities are raised by the tenant with respect to service of
legal notice terminating the tenancy, the legislature amended Section
106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 by Act 3 of 2003 whereby no
defence was permitted with respect to defective legal notice as long as
a suit for possession was filed after 15 days of service of notice. The
second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant is
also therefore misconceived and is rejected.
7. No other point or argument was raised before this Court.
In view of the above, I do not find and illegality or perversity in the
impugned judgment and decree which calls for interference by this
Court. There is also no need of summoning of the Trial Court record in
RFA No.147/2011 Page 3 of 4
view of the admitted facts as appearing with respect to relationship of
landlord and tenant, the tenancy being a month to month tenancy
which could be terminated by virtue of Section 106 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, rent being more than Rs.3,500/- per month
whereby the tenant would not have the protection under the Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 and the fact that the notice has been proved to
have been served at the correct address as shown from the exhibited
documents.
8. The appeal is therefore misconceived, and is dismissed,
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
March 09, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ak
