Delhi High Court
Satish Kumar Sushil vs Bal Govind Rohtgi on 16 April, 2012
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 178/2012
% 16th April, 2012
SATISH KUMAR SUSHIL ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. S.P. Batra, Advocate.
versus
BAL GOVIND ROHTGI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate.
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 (RFA) filed under
Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned
judgment of the trial Court dated 14.10.2011 decreeing the suit of the
respondent/landlord/plaintiff for possession on an application under Order 12
Rule 6 CPC.
2. In Delhi, where the tenancies have rent in excess of `3,500/- per month
and such tenancies are not tenancies for fixed period under a registered lease,
i.e. they are monthly tenancies, then such tenancies can be terminated by
means of service of legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882.
3. Before me, learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that there
is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the rate of
rent is `4,000/- per month.
4. So far as the issue of termination of tenancy is concerned, I have held
in the judgment reported as M/s.Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. vs. M/s.
Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) & Anr. 2011 (183) DLT 712 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.
An SLP against the said judgment being SLP No.15740/2011 has been
dismissed by the Supreme Court on 7.7.2011.
5. The trial Court, in my opinion, therefore, rightly held that there was no
disputed question of fact which required trial and the suit so far as the relief
for possession was concerned, was rightly decreed. The suit is of course
continuing so far as the relief for mesne profits is concerned.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant before this Court vehemently
canvassed two arguments. The first argument was that the suit was without
cause of action and the second argument was that the trial Court did not have
pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit.
7. In my opinion, the arguments are without any basis, inasmuch as, I fail
to understand as to why there is no cause of action, inasmuch as, once the
tenant's tenancy is terminated and the rent is above `3,500/- per month
whereby the protection of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is not available,
surely there is a cause of action to file suit for possession and mesne profits.
8. So far as, the second argument of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction is
concerned, again this argument is without any merit, inasmuch as, once the
tenancy is terminated the appellant/tenant is liable to pay mesne profits and
the amount which is claimed as mesne profits determines the pecuniary
jurisdiction of the Court.
9. The Supreme Court 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
actual and realistic costs be imposed in order to preempt and prevent
dishonesty in litigation. Earlier, a Division Bench of three Judges in the case
of Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India, (2005)6 SCC 344 in
para 37 has also observed that it is high time that actual costs be awarded. I
am also entitled 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. Unfortunately, there are certain tenants who refuse to vacate the
premises in an obdurate fashion and also insist on contesting the litigation on
frivolous grounds. The present appeal is one such litigation.
10. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is
accordingly dismissed with costs of `30,000/- and which costs shall be paid
within a period of four weeks from today.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
APRIL 16, 2012
AK
