1999 (5) TMI 626 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Landlord-tenant relationship post Rent Act era.
2. Validity of an unregistered lease deed.
3. Effect of the Delhi Rent Control Act amendment.
4. Impact of dismissal of an ejectment suit for default.
5. Fresh notice to quit and subsequent suit for ejectment.
6. Legal status of tenant post-dismissal of ejectment suit.
7. Cause of action in a suit for ejectment.
8. Interpretation of Order 9, Rule 9, CPC.
9. Tenant's rights and landlord's reversionary rights post-dismissal of ejectment suit.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Landlord-tenant relationship post Rent Act era:
The judgment discusses the transformation in landlord-tenant relationships following the amendment to the Delhi Rent Control Act, which ceased to protect tenancies with rents exceeding Rs. 3,500/- per month. Consequently, the relationship between the parties is governed solely by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

2. Validity of an unregistered lease deed:
The lease deed dated 1.4.1982 was not registered. According to settled law, in the absence of a registered instrument, the tenancy is considered month-to-month. The court cited several Supreme Court decisions affirming this principle, including Bhawanji Lakhamshi v. Himatlal Jamnadas Dani and Burmah Shell v. Khaja Midhat Noor.

3. Effect of the Delhi Rent Control Act amendment:
With the amendment to Section 3(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the premises in question, where the rent exceeds Rs. 3,500/-, are no longer covered by the Rent Act. The judgment emphasizes that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 now apply.

4. Impact of dismissal of an ejectment suit for default:
The previous suit for ejectment was dismissed for default. The court examined whether such dismissal bars a fresh suit for ejectment under Rule 9 of Order 9, CPC. It concluded that the dismissal for default does not extinguish the landlord's reversionary rights or convert the tenant's status to that of an absolute owner.

5. Fresh notice to quit and subsequent suit for ejectment:
The landlord served a fresh notice to quit dated 15.10.1996 and filed a new suit for ejectment. The court held that the dismissal of the earlier suit does not preclude the landlord from serving a fresh notice and filing a subsequent suit for ejectment.

6. Legal status of tenant post-dismissal of ejectment suit:
Upon dismissal of the ejectment suit, the tenant's status is restored to that of a month-to-month tenant rather than a tenant at sufferance. The court clarified that the tenant does not become an owner in freehold or a tenant in perpetuity.

7. Cause of action in a suit for ejectment:
The court identified the cause of action in a suit for ejectment as the termination of the tenancy by a valid notice to quit. Each notice to quit and the subsequent expiry of the tenancy month constitutes a fresh cause of action.

8. Interpretation of Order 9, Rule 9, CPC:
Order 9, Rule 9, CPC precludes a fresh suit on the same cause of action if the previous suit was dismissed for default. However, the court interpreted that a fresh notice to quit creates a new cause of action, allowing the landlord to file a new suit for ejectment.

9. Tenant's rights and landlord's reversionary rights post-dismissal of ejectment suit:
The court emphasized that the dismissal of an ejectment suit does not affect the landlord's reversionary rights. The tenant remains liable for rent and continues as a tenant from month-to-month, subject to termination by a fresh notice to quit.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the order of the learned ADJ, dismissing the tenant's application under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, and affirmed that the second suit for ejectment is not barred under Order 9, Rule 9, CPC. The civil revision was dismissed, with no orders as to costs. The observations made in the judgment do not affect the tenant's right to appeal against the decree for ejectment passed on 11.3.1999.

← Previous Next →