Delhi High Court
M/S Kew Precision Parts (Pvt.) ... vs Sandhya Adlakha & Ors. on 12 November, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: November 12, 2014
+ RSA 276/2014 & C.M.No.16750/2014
M/S KEW PRECISION PARTS (PVT) LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rakesh Tikku, Sr.Advocate
with Ms. Shabana Ahmed, Mr.
Sandeep Kumar & Mr. Aman
Nandrajog, Advocates
versus
SANDHYA ADLAKHA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Atul Nigam & Mr. Amit
Tiwari, Advocates
+ RSA 279/2014 & C.M.No.16812/2014
M/S KEW PERCISION PARTS (PVT) LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rakesh Tikku, Sr.Advocate
Ms. Shabana Ahmed, Mr. Sandeep
Kumar & Mr. Aman Nandrajog,
Advocates
versus
SAROOP LAL ADHLAKHA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Atul Nigam & Mr. Amit
Tiwari, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
RSA No.276/2014 Page 1
RSA No.279/2014
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the above
captioned two appeals are taken up together for hearing as they are
directed against common impugned judgment of 26th July, 2014 vide
which respondents-plaintiffs' suits for possession of two adjoining
premises in property bearing No.41, DLF Industrial Area, Najafgarh
Road, Delhi (which were subject matter of suit No.295 and 297/13/00)
were decreed. The concurrent finding returned by both the courts below is
that the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties is
admitted. However, vide impugned judgment the parties have been
permitted to lead evidence on the quantum of damages and mesne profits
and on this limited aspect, the matter has been remanded back to trial
court.
The question raised in these two second appeals by learned senior
counsel for appellant is whether the deposition of an attorney of a party is
admissible in evidence and as to whether suit for possession of a property
can be decreed by treating unregistered lease of the suit property as
month to month.
At the hearing, learned counsel for respondents-plaintiffs had
supported the impugned judgment and the trial court judgment and had
submitted that Mr. Sanjay Adlakha (PW-3) is the son of the landlord and
in Suit No. 297/13/00, he had deposed as a witness and not as the
Attorney of plaintiffs but in the connected Suit No. 295/13/00, he had
RSA No.276/2014 Page 2
RSA No.279/2014
deposed as Attorney of respondents-plaintiffs. Attention of this Court
was drawn to the deposition of this witness (PW-3) in Suit No. 297/13/00
to point out that this witness categorically deposed that he was aware of
the facts of the case and he had served the notice terminating the tenancy
of appellant herein and he had identified signatures of his father on plaint
as well as vakalatnama.
Similarly, it was pointed out that Mr. Sanjay Adlakha in Suit No.
295/13/00 has clearly deposed that he was aware of the facts of the case,
as he was following the subject matter of this suit and on instructions
from respondents, he had got prepared a site plan from a draftsman after
vising the suit premises. Thus, it was submitted by respondents-plaintiffs
that Mr. Sanjay Adlakha (PW-3) has clearly proved the case of plaintiffs
and statutory notice of six months was given to appellant-defendant
before terminating the lease of the suit premises. Thus, it was submitted
that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment or the trial court
judgment.
Learned senior counsel for appellant had placed reliance upon
decision in Vidhyadhar Vs. Mankikrao & anr. AIR 1999 SC 1441 to
contend that adverse inference ought to be drawn as respondents-
plaintiffs have not stepped into the witness box to prove their case.
Reliance was also placed upon decision in Man Kaur (Dead) by LRs. Vs.
Hartar Singh Sangha 2010 X AD (S.C.) 304 to submit that since the
respondents-plaintiffs has failed to prove the averments made in the
plaint, therefore, courts below have gravely erred in decreeing the suit of
respondents-plaintiffs.
RSA No.276/2014 Page 3
RSA No.279/2014
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the impugned judgment, trial court judgment and material on record and
the decisions cited, I find that the proposition of law, as spelt out in the
afore-cited decisions is not in dispute but in the instant case, it stands
amply proved from the evidence of Mr. Sanjay Adlakha that the plaint in
these two cases was duly instituted and the contents thereof stand duly
proved. Though statutory notice was served upon the appellant in these
two suits but while relying upon a decision of 25th March, 2011 of this
Court in RFA No. 179/2011, M/S Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. Vs.
M/S Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) & Anr., which stands affirmed by the
Apex Court, it has been held that filing of the suit by respondents-
plaintiffs itself amounts to serving of notice of terminating the lease deed
in question.
No doubt the lease in Jeevan Diesel (Supra), was month to month
lease whereas in the instant case, it was a five years lease but since it was
unregistered, therefore, the contents of the lease deed in question can be
looked into for collateral purpose, as the lease in question was not a
registered lease. So statutory notice of six months is not required to be
given and in the considered opinion of this Court, the courts below have
rightly come to the conclusion that filing of the suit by itself amounts to
termination of the lease. It was rightly not urged by learned senior
counsel for appellant that suit for possession cannot be decreed against
appellant for want of proper site plan because in the lease deed in
question as well as in the plaint, the suit property has been properly
described and there is no confusion about it.
RSA No.276/2014 Page 4
RSA No.279/2014
The concurrent findings returned against the appellant cannot be
said to be perverse. No substantial question of law arises in these two
appeals. Hence, these two appeals and applications are dismissed while
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 12, 2014
r
RSA No.276/2014 Page 5
RSA No.279/2014
