2000 (8) TMI 1140 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice of termination of tenancy.
2. Applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
3. Existence of a monthly tenancy after the expiry of the fixed-term lease.
4. Maintainability of the suit filed by the plaintiffs alone.
5. Impact of a pending partition suit on the current suit for possession.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notice of Termination of Tenancy:
The plaintiffs issued a notice of termination dated 10.6.1991, which the defendant contested as invalid. The court found that the tenancy was for a fixed period of ten years, expiring on 31.5.1989, and thus no further notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was required. The notice dated 10.6.1991 was issued as an abundant precaution and did not imply the continuation of tenancy.

2. Applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act:
The court noted that the initial agreed rent was Rs. 5,500/- per month, which increased to Rs. 6,600/- per month. Since the rent exceeded Rs. 3,500/-, the premises were excluded from the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as amended in 1988. The court referenced the case of D.C. Bhatia Vs. Union of India, which held that the amended Act applied to tenancies created before the amendment where the monthly rent exceeded Rs. 3,500/-.

3. Existence of a Monthly Tenancy After Expiry of Fixed-Term Lease:
The defendant claimed that a monthly tenancy was created after the expiry of the ten-year lease, as rent was paid and accepted monthly by cheques. The court found no evidence that the plaintiffs accepted these cheques as rent after the expiry of the lease. The cheques were not encashed, and the plaintiffs had explicitly indicated through notices that the tenancy would not be continued. Therefore, no monthly tenancy was established.

4. Maintainability of the Suit Filed by the Plaintiffs Alone:
The defendant argued that the suit was not maintainable as it was filed by the plaintiffs alone without the other co-owners. The court held that all co-owners were impleaded in the suit, either as plaintiffs or as defendants, and thus an effective decree for possession could be passed. The other co-owners had not objected to the suit, and the suit was for the benefit of all co-owners.

5. Impact of a Pending Partition Suit on the Current Suit for Possession:
The defendant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, claiming that a pending partition suit would affect the current suit for possession. The court dismissed this application, stating that a suit for partition does not effect partition until it is completed by metes and bounds. Until then, all co-owners have rights over the entire property. The proposed amendment was based on conjecture and did not improve the defendant's case.

Conclusion:
The court found no triable issues or bona fide defenses raised by the defendant. The lease deed, rate of rent, and termination of tenancy by efflux of time were either admitted or undisputed. Consequently, the court allowed the plaintiffs' application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and passed a decree for possession of the tenancy premises against the defendant, granting one month for vacating the premises. The application was disposed of with costs awarded to the plaintiffs.