Harish Kumar vs Sohan Singh Gusain Decd Thr Lrs
2012 Latest Caselaw 2308 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                              RFA No.170/2012

%                                                            10th April, 2012

         HARISH KUMAR                                         ..... Appellant
                               Through:   Mr. Rajesh Ridla, Adv.

                      versus


         SOHAN SINGH GUSAIN DECD THR LRS           ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Prabhjot Jauhar, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

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 9.12.2011 decreeing the suit of

the respondent/plaintiff/landlord qua the relief of possession on an

application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

2. In the city of Delhi tenanted premises whose rent exceeds

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

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

of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA). On the service of the notice a

tenant becomes a trespasser in the erstwhile tenanted premises and is liable

to hand over the vacant peaceful possession. In case of expiry of lease

period by efflux of time no service of notice under Section 106 of the TPA is

necessary.

3. In the present case, the premises in question is one shop bearing

no. UG-39, Somdutt Chambers No.1, 5 Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi.

The premises were let out for a period of two years under a registered lease

deed dated 14.12.2005 and the agreed rent was `7,000/- per month at the

outset, and after 12 months the rent became `7,700/- per month. The tenant

was also liable to pay the maintenance charges. The respondent/plaintiff

sought to terminate the tenancy by the legal notice dated 14.6.2007 with

effect from 31.8.2007. A subsequent legal notice dated 5.10.2007 was also

sent to the appellant/defendant which he avoided and refused to receive.

Notices were sent as the appellant/defendant was also in arrears towards rent

of `1,22,900/- besides also certain unpaid maintenance charges. Dehors the

issue of termination of tenancy by service of the notices, the lease period of

two years in any case expired by efflux of time on 15.12.2007.

4. A reference to the written statement shows that there is no

denial that there is a relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties.

The appellant/defendant admitted the existence of the lease agreement dated

14.12.2005 which was said to be in continuation of an earlier agreement

dated 15.12.2003 and which tenancy expired by efflux of time on

15.12.2007. The receipt of legal notice is also admitted, and, in any case the

lease expired by efflux of time on 15.12.2007. The aforesaid admissions are

made in paras 1, 2, 7 and 12 of the preliminary submission in the written

statement besides in other paras of the written statement.

5. Obviously, therefore there are no disputed questions of fact

which require trial as there are admissions of relationship of landlord and

tenant between the parties, rent being more than `3,500/- per month, and the

tenancy terminated by efflux of time besides the fact that two legal notices

dated 14.6.2007 and 5.10.2007 terminating the tenancy were served.

6. At the conclusion of hearing I asked the counsel for the

appellant as to whether the appellant is interested in taking time to vacate the

premises. Counsel for the appellant states that he has instruction to argue on

merits. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgment of the

learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Saket Cultural Club (Regd.)

vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, 98 (2002) DLT 20 to argue that since the

admissions are not categorical, there cannot be a decree on admissions.

Reliance is also similarly placed upon another judgment in the case of

Meera Gupta vs. Dinesh Chand & Ors., 94 (2001) DLT 10 (DB).

7. In my opinion, the judgment in the case of Saket Cultural Club

(supra) will not apply inasmuch as in the facts of the present case there are

clear-cut admissions. So far as the judgment of Meera Gupta (supra) is

concerned the same in fact supports the respondent/plaintiff. The facts of

the case narrated above show that there are no disputed questions of fact

which require trial.

8. There are certain sections of tenants in this country who insist

on continuing in possession of tenanted premises even after expiry of

tenancy by efflux of time and even after notice is sent to them to vacate the

tenanted premises. Such obdurate tenants insist on falsely contesting

litigations so as to continue the illegal occupation of the tenanted premises.

In the present case, we are in April 2012 and the appellant/defendant/tenant

is overstaying from December, 2007.

9. The Supreme Court in the recent judgment of Ramrameshwari

Devi and Others v. Nirmala Devi and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 249 has held

that it is high time that dishonesty in litigations should not be allowed to

harm/prejudice the opposite party. The Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari

Devi (supra) has held that Courts must now award actual costs to preempt

dishonesty in litigations. 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.

10. Since there is no merit in the appeal, the same is accordingly

dismissed, with costs of `25,000/-. Costs be paid within 2 weeks from

today.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J APRIL 10, 2012 ak