2000 (7) TMI 1005 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Contractual Tenancy
2. Valid Termination of Lease
3. Applicability of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act
4. Deduction of Electricity Charges
5. Preliminary Objections to Suit Maintainability
6. Liability to Pay Amounts Alleged in Written Statement
7. Entitlement to Claimed Amounts
8. Entitlement to Damages
9. Entitlement to Interest
10. Entitlement to Possession
11. Entitlement to Injunction
12. Relief

Detailed Analysis:

1. Contractual Tenancy:
The defendant claimed to be a contractual tenant since 1985 and argued that the lease deeds dated 12.5.94 were not acted upon but were sham documents. The trial court framed an issue to determine if the defendant was indeed a contractual tenant and the effect thereof. The High Court noted that this issue required trial as it involved determining the nature of the tenancy and the effect of the circumstances under which rent was accepted by the plaintiffs.

2. Valid Termination of Lease:
The plaintiffs alleged that the lease expired by efflux of time on 12th September 1996 and that notices were served to vacate the premises. The defendant contested the validity of the termination, arguing that no proper notice was served as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The High Court observed that whether the lease was validly terminated or expired by efflux of time required evidence and could not be decided solely on admissions.

3. Applicability of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act:
The defendant raised the issue that the suit was not maintainable under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This section deals with the doctrine of part performance, which protects a transferee in possession of the property. The High Court did not find clear admissions to resolve this issue without trial.

4. Deduction of Electricity Charges:
The defendant claimed entitlement to deduct electricity charges from the rent. The High Court noted that this issue also required trial to determine the legitimacy and effect of such deductions.

5. Preliminary Objections to Suit Maintainability:
The defendant raised several preliminary objections, including the non-termination of tenancy in accordance with law and the maintainability of the suit based on the alleged lease deed. The High Court found that these objections raised triable issues that needed to be resolved through evidence.

6. Liability to Pay Amounts Alleged in Written Statement:
The defendant contested liability to pay the amounts claimed by the plaintiffs. The High Court noted that this issue involved factual determinations that could not be resolved without trial.

7. Entitlement to Claimed Amounts:
The plaintiffs claimed arrears of rent and damages, which the defendant disputed. The High Court held that the plaintiffs' entitlement to these amounts required a trial to establish the facts.

8. Entitlement to Damages:
The plaintiffs sought damages for use and occupation of the premises. The High Court ruled that the determination of damages required evidence and could not be based on admissions alone.

9. Entitlement to Interest:
The plaintiffs claimed interest on the amounts due. The High Court noted that the entitlement to interest and its extent needed to be determined through trial.

10. Entitlement to Possession:
The trial court had decreed possession based on alleged admissions in the written statements. The High Court found that there were triable issues regarding the nature of the tenancy and the validity of the lease termination, which required a full trial.

11. Entitlement to Injunction:
The plaintiffs sought an injunction against the defendant. The High Court did not specifically address this issue but implied that it would be resolved along with other issues during the trial.

12. Relief:
The High Court set aside the trial court's judgments and decrees, remanding the suits for trial. It directed the appellant to pay arrears of rent and charges for fittings and fixtures up to September 1996 and to continue paying use and occupation charges at an enhanced rate until the final disposal of the suit. The High Court also ordered the consolidation of the two suits for joint trial to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the trial court's judgments and decrees, and remanded the suits for trial. It directed the appellant to pay arrears and enhanced use and occupation charges and ordered the consolidation of the suits for joint trial. The trial court was also directed to hold an enquiry into missing documents from the case files.