Jai Sujanti vs Smt Sudarshan Chadha & Anr
2013 Latest Caselaw 3262 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Date of decision: 29th July, 2013.

+              RFA 303/2013 & CM No.10023/2013 (for stay)

      JAI SUJANTI                                       ......... Appellant
                            Through:   Ms. Savita Aggarwal, Adv.

                                   Versus

    SMT SUDARSHAN CHADHA & ANR              ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Lalit Bhasin & Mr. Sanjay
                           Gupta, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The appeal impugns the judgment and decree (of the Court of

Additional District Judge (Central)-10 in suit No.1250/2008) dated

15.05.2013, on admissions, of ejectment of the appellant from a portion of

property No.A-69, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi; inquiry into mesne profits /

damages for use and occupation is underway.

2. The appeal came up first before this Court on 08.07.2013 when even

though prima facie no merit was found therein but being a first appeal, the

Trial Court record was requisitioned and notice issued to the respondents.

3. The Trial Court record has been perused and the counsel for the

appellant has been heard.

4. The suit filed by the two respondents against the appellant from

which this appeal arises was a suit by landlord for ejectment of the tenant.

The Trial Court passed the judgment and decree on admissions holding that

there was no dispute as to the relationship of landlord and tenant, the rate of

rent (and which showed that the tenancy/premises were outside the purview

of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) and the termination of tenancy.

Accordingly, decree for ejectment on admissions has been passed.

5. The counsel for the appellant has argued that there was no admission

of relationship of landlord and tenant.

6. It has been enquired from the counsel for the appellant as to whom

the appellant had been paying rent of the premises.

7. The counsel for the appellant states that the premises were originally

let out to the appellant by Sh. R.P. Chadha, husband of the respondent no.1

and father of the respondent no.2 and after the demise of Sh. R.P. Chadha in

January, 2006, the rent is being paid to the respondent no.1 only. It is

contended that thus the relationship of landlord and tenant is with the

respondent no.1 only and not with the respondent No.2 Smt. Geetu Sahani.

8. The case of the respondents/plaintiffs in their plaint was that Sh. R.P.

Chadha had died intestate leaving his widow and only child viz. the

respondent no.2 and thus the suit was filed by both of them even though the

rent was being collected by respondent no.1 who is the mother of the

respondent no.2.

9. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not define 'landlord';

however the definition of the said term in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

makes, not only the person to whom the rent is being paid but also the

person who is entitled to such rent, as the landlord. Even though the

premises are not governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 but the

definition of 'landlord' therein can always be applied to the present case

also. Even otherwise, there is no dispute between the two respondents and

even if it were to be held that only the respondent no.1 is the landlord, the

mere presence of the respondent no.2 and that too with the consent of the

respondent no.1 would not come in the way of the order of ejectment. It

otherwise also does not lie in the mouth of the tenant to take any such

objection.

10. Else, I find the impugned judgment to have extensively dealt with all

the aspects and need is not felt to reiterate the same.

11. The counsel for the appellant has also argued that the respondents

themselves have pleaded their title to the house as owners after the demise

of Sh. R.P. Chadha and since the appellant/tenant had disputed the same, no

decree on admissions could have been passed. It is further contended that

the reliance by the Trial Court on Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. Vs.

United Bank of India (2007) 7 SCC 120 for invoking Order 12 Rule 6 is

erroneous.

12. It is the settled position in law, that in a suit between landlord and

tenant, it is only the title as landlord which is relevant and not the title as

owner. As far back as in Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath (1976) 4 SCC

184, it was held that under the general law, in a suit between landlord and

tenant, the question of title to the leased property is irrelevant. Recently

also, in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. D. Raghukul Pershad (2012) 8 SCC

584 it was held that relief of eviction of a tenant is not based on the title of

the landlord to the leased premises and even if an averment to the said

effect, of landlord being owner, is made in the plaint, as long as no relief of

declaration of title is claimed and only the relief of eviction of tenant on the

ground that lease has come to an end is claimed, the Court is not called upon

to decide the question of title.

13. As far as reference to Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. supra is

concerned, it may be mentioned that since then the Division Bench of this

Court in Vijaya Myne Vs. Satya Bhushan Kaura 142 (2007) DLT 483 (DB)

has considerably expanded the scope of Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC by

holding that admissions by inferences can also be drawn.

14. I may even otherwise mention that Order 15 of the CPC also entitles

the Court, when finding no question of law or fact to be arising for

adjudication, to immediately pass a decree.

15. In the light of the aforesaid facts, no issue arose for adjudication in

the present case as far as the relief of ejectment was claimed and no error is

thus found in the impugned judgment and decree.

16. The counsel for the appellant at this stage refers to M/s Amar

Agencies Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Weavers Co-operative

Society Ltd. 82 (1999) DLT 76 but which is not found applicable to the facts

of the present case. The suit in that case was filed averring the defendant to

be a licencee; the defendant pleaded tenancy and in which context it was

held that the said plea of tenancy was required to be adjudicated and decree

for possession could not have been passed without trial.

17. At this stage, counsel for the appellant has also referred to CREF

Finance Ltd. Vs. Shanthi Homes Pvt. Ltd. Co., Bangalore AIR 2006

Karnataka 54 but admissions in which case were not complete and were

such qua which it was held that an opportunity of explanation has to be

given. However, in the present case as aforesaid there is a complete

admission of the relationship of landlord and tenant and non applicability of

the Rent Act. The determination of tenancy as per the judgments of the

Apex Court and of the Division Bench of this court discussed in the

impugned judgment losses its significance. Reference may also be made to

the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Shri Ram Pistons &

Rings Ltd. Vs. C.B. Agarwal (HUF) MANU/DE/2381/2008 where the

Division Bench has following the Supreme Court held that the notice of

determination of tenancy even if disputed loses its significance since filing

of the suit itself amounts to determination of tenancy. In the present case,

the suit, prior to being adjudicated on admissions on 15.05.2013, had

remained pending since the year 2008 and the appellant thus had more than

five years notice of the respondents / landlords not wanting to continue with

the appellant as the tenant.

18. The counsel for the appellant at this stage under instructions from the

appellant states that the appellant withdraws the appeal and does not want to

challenge the order of ejectment and only seeks time till 31.01.2014 to

vacate the premises.

19. The counsel for the respondents has no objection subject to an

undertaking to the said effect being given by appellant.

20. The appellant through counsel undertakes to this Court to hand over

vacant peaceful, physical possession of the entire portion to property No.A-

69, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi in possession and use of the appellant to the

respondent on or before 31.01.2014 and to clear all charges for electricity,

water etc. of the said portion prior thereto and to till the date of handing

over possession continue to month by month pay the amount at the rate of

the last paid rent to the respondents.

21. The aforesaid undertaking of the appellant is accepted and the

appellant is ordered to be bound thereby.

22. The appeal is resultantly dismissed as withdrawn.

23. However, subject to the appellant complying with the undertaking,

the decree for possession is made inexecutable till 31.01.2014.

24. The Trial Court record be sent back forthwith as the same may be

required for inquiry into mesne profits.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

JULY 29, 2013 'gsr'..