2012 (7) TMI 1128 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether there exists a landlord-tenant relationship.
2. Whether the rent of the premises is Rs. 3,500/- and above.
3. Whether the tenancy stands validly determined.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property.
5. Whether the plaintiff is liable to pay damages/mesne profits and interest.

Summary:

Issue 1: Landlord-Tenant Relationship
The appellant did not deny the jural relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. The monthly rent was Rs. 10,995/-, which is more than Rs. 3,500/- per month, making the Delhi Rent Control Act 1957 inapplicable.

Issue 2: Rent of the Premises
The rent of the premises was admitted to be Rs. 10,995/- per month, which is above the threshold of Rs. 3,500/- per month, thus excluding the tenancy from the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1957.

Issue 3: Valid Termination of Tenancy
The respondents issued a legal notice dated April 1, 1991, terminating the tenancy effective May 15, 1991, or any subsequent date as per the appellant's calculation. The appellant admitted receipt of the notice but claimed it was not in accordance with law without specifying reasons. The court found this plea vague and insufficient to merit an issue.

Issue 4: Entitlement to Possession
The court upheld the respondents' application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, decreeing possession in favor of the respondents. The appellant's contention that a second application under the same provision could not be filed was rejected, as the previous order expressly granted liberty to file afresh if the suit was not disposed of expeditiously.

Issue 5: Damages/Mesne Profits and Interest
The suit was retained for issues relating to mesne profits and interest. The court noted that the status of the tenant post-termination was reduced to that of a tenant at sufferance, not a tenant holding over, as there was no bilateral consensus to continue the tenancy.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision to decree possession in favor of the respondents. The vague plea regarding the notice's legality did not merit consideration, and the settlement of issues did not preclude the applicability of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The proceedings reflected a lackadaisical approach, with a simple suit filed in 1992 remaining unresolved for 20 years.