2005 (3) TMI 815 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the trial court's decision to dismiss the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
2. Nature of the tenancy (whether joint or individual).
3. Applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
4. Validity of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
5. Maintainability of the revision petition and the registration of the lease deed.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the trial court's decision to dismiss the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC:
The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's application under Order XII Rule 6, CPC, which sought a judgment based on admissions made in the pleadings. The trial court felt that the issue of whether the tenancy was joint or individual needed to be decided after recording evidence. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, concluding that the admissions made by the defendants were sufficient to pass a judgment under Order XII Rule 6, CPC.

2. Nature of the tenancy (whether joint or individual):
The core issue was whether the tenancy was joint or individual. The defendants argued that the tenancy was individual, with each tenant liable to pay their share of the rent separately. However, the lease deed, which was not disputed, indicated a joint tenancy. The lease deed was executed by all four brothers collectively, and the rent was stipulated as a total amount of Rs. 2500/- per month. The High Court found that the tenancy was indeed joint, based on the lease deed and other communications, such as the acceptance of a single cheque for rent on behalf of all four brothers.

3. Applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958:
The plaintiff argued that the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act ceased to apply once the rent exceeded Rs. 3500/- per month. The defendants contended that their individual shares of rent never exceeded Rs. 3500/-. The High Court, however, determined that since the tenancy was joint, the total rent was considered, which indeed exceeded Rs. 3500/-, making the Act inapplicable.

4. Validity of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act:
The defendants argued that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was invalid because it was a single notice for what they claimed were four separate tenancies. The High Court found this argument unpersuasive, given the joint nature of the tenancy. The notice was deemed valid as it was served in accordance with the joint tenancy arrangement.

5. Maintainability of the revision petition and the registration of the lease deed:
The defendants raised objections regarding the maintainability of the revision petition and the non-registration of the lease deed. These objections were not raised before the trial court or the High Court and were seen as attempts to delay the eviction process. The Supreme Court dismissed these objections, emphasizing that the lease deed clearly indicated a joint tenancy and that Order XII Rule 6, CPC, was designed to expedite trials based on admissions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the tenancy was joint and the rent exceeded Rs. 3500/-, making the Delhi Rent Control Act inapplicable. The notice under Section 106 was valid, and the objections regarding the revision petition and lease deed registration were dismissed. The Special Leave Petition was thus dismissed, and the eviction decree passed by the High Court was upheld.