Sh. Ashwani Bhatia vs Sh. Suresh Rastogi & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2267 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           RFA No. 167/2012

%                                                           10th April, 2012

SH. ASHWANI BHATIA                             ..... Appellant
                  Through:               Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate.

                      Versus

SH. SURESH RASTOGI & ANR.                      ..... Respondents

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

RFA No.167/2012 and C.M. No.6164/2012 (stay)

1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under

Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned

judgment of the trial Court dated 22.2.2012 decreeing the suit of the

respondents/plaintiffs/landlords for possession of the suit/tenanted premises

on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/defendant took on rent

the suit premises being House No.97, second floor, Old Gupta Colony, Delhi-

110009 from the respondents/plaintiffs/landlords under a registered rent

agreement dated 13.8.2010. The period of tenancy was from 6.8.2010 to

5.7.2011 and the rate of rent was ` 14,200/- per month. The

respondents/landlords claimed that the appellant/defendant paid rent only for

two months i.e. August, 2010 and September, 2010 and thereafter failed to

pay the rent as also the water charges. The respondent/plaintiff thereafter

served a legal notice dated 8.1.2011 terminating the tenancy and to which the

appellant/defendant sent a reply dated 5.2.2011. In the reply, it was claimed

that the rent was paid and therefore the notice was illegal.

3. In the city of Delhi, the tenanted premises whose rent is more

than ` 3,500/- per month, and the tenancy is a monthly tenancy, then such

tenancy can be terminated by means of a legal notice under Section 106 of the

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In case

of fixed period tenancies, once the lease period under a registered lease deed

expires, the tenancy expires by efflux of time, and there is no need even of

terminating such tenancies by serving a notice under Section 106 of the Act.

4. In the present case, relationship of landlord and tenant is

admitted and the rate of rent is also admitted to be more than ` 3,500/- i.e. `

14,200/- per month. Dehors the issue of termination of tenancy, the period of

lease has also expired on 5.7.2011. I have in the recent judgment reported as

M/s.Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. vs. M/s. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF)

& Anr. 2011 (183) DLT 712 held that even if it is not proved that a legal

notice was served prior to filing of the suit, service of summons of the suit can

be taken as a notice under Section 106 of the Act. I have held that Court

should take a pragmatic view in view of the legislative intendment as

demonstrated by Act 3 of 2003, amending Section 106 of the Act. An SLP

against the said judgment being SLP No.15740/2011 has been dismissed by

the Supreme Court on 7.7.2011.

5. In view of the above, no fault can be found with the impugned

judgment as there are no disputed questions of facts which require trial.

6. After the hearing, I put it to the counsel for the appellant as to

whether the appellant is interested in taking time to vacate the suit premises

but the counsel for the appellant states that the appellant invites a judgment.

7. The Supreme Court in its recent judgment in the case of

Ramrameshwari Devi and Others v. Nirmala Devi and Others (2011) 8 SCC

249 has held that it is high time that dishonesty in litigation should be pre-

empted and prevented by imposition of actual costs. I am also empowered to

impose actual costs by virtue of Volume V of the Punjab High Court Rules

and Orders (as applicable to Delhi) Chapter VI Part I Rule 15.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no merit in the appeal

which is accordingly dismissed, and in the facts of the present case with costs

of ` 15,000/- to be deposited in the account of Registrar General of this Court,

maintained in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi for being

utilized towards juvenile justice. Costs be deposited within a period of four

weeks from today.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J APRIL 10, 2012 Ne