9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iff. Suffice it to say that the averments made in the written statement clearly accept the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties no matter the lease agreement was not duly registered. Whether the tenancy was for residential or commercial use of the property is wholly immaterial for the grant of a decree for possession - Thus as the premises in question is being used by the tenant for commercial purposes, thus the defendant is granted time till 31st December, 2012 to vacate the same on furnishing an undertaking in usual terms before this Court within four weeks from date of this Order. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6734 OF 2012 - - - Dated:- 20-9-2012 - T.S. Thakur And Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ. JUDGMENT T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. In a suit for possession and recovery of mesne profit filed by the plaintiff- appellant before the trial Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for possession in its favour on admissions, invoking the Court s powers under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The trial Court examined the prayer and held that the jural relationship of la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that estopped a tenant from denying the title of the landlord. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in Karam Kapahi v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust (2010) 4 SCC 753 and Charanjit Lal Mehra v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan (2005) 11 SCC 279, Mr. Rai argued that the High Court ought to have refused any interference with the decree passed by the Court below especially when no triable issue arose for determination by the trial Court. 5. On behalf of the respondent, it was argued that the High Court was justified in holding that the written statement did not contain a clear and unequivocal admission of the relevant aspects, namely the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the termination of the tenancy by service of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. According to him, the High Court was also justified in relying upon the decision of this Court in Jeevan Diesels Electricals Ltd. v. Jasbir Singh Chadha (2010) 6 SCC 601 while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Court below. 6. In a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant whose tenancy is not protected under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, whether there is a clear admission or not cannot be decided on the basis of a judicial precedent. Therefore, even though the principles in Karam Kapahi (supra) may be unexceptionable they cannot be applied in the instant case in view of totally different fact situation. 8. Coming then to the question whether there is any admission by the tenant-respondent regarding the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, it would be profitable to refer to the averments made by the plaintiff-appellant in para 2 of the plaint which is to the following effect: That the plaintiff had agreed to let out the entire property at Khasra No. 857 min. (1-03) Village Tehsil Mehrauli in the NCT of Delhi Gitorani alongwith superstructure including servant quarter and garage of the defendant to the defendant for residential requirement at a monthly rent of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards the rent for the demised premises exclusive of charges for the electricity appliances, fixtures and fittings for a period of three years commencing on 10th day of October 2001 vide lease agreement dated 10.10.2001. 9. In the written statement filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... written statement a plea regarding the nature and extent of the super structure also. While the plaintiff s case is that the super structure as it existed on the date of the lease deed had been let out to the defendant and the defendant had made structural changes without any authorisation, the defendant s case is that the super structure was constructed by her at her own cost pursuant to some oral agreement between the parties. It is unnecessary for us to delve deep into that aspect of the dispute, for the nature and extent of superstructure or the legality of the changes allegedly made by the defendant is not relevant to the determination of the question whether the existence of tenancy is admitted by the defendant. At any rate, nature and extent of structure whether modified or even re- constructed by the defendant is a matter that can not alter the nature of the possession which the defendant holds in terms of the agreement executed by her. The relationship of the landlord and the tenant remains unaffected even if the tenant has with or without the consent of the landlord made structural changes in the property. Indeed if the tenancy was protected by the rent law and making of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her. In para 6 of the preliminary objections raised in the written statement she has simply disputed the validity of the notice on the ground that that the same is not in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Para 6, reads as under: That the alleged notice dated 17th March, 2003 is not as per the provisions of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. It is settled law that notice for termination of lease has to be in mandatory terms so specified in Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. 14. Far from constituting a denial of the receipt of the notice the above is an admission of the fact that the notice was received by her but the same was not in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In fairness to counsel for the tenant-respondent in this appeal, we must record that the order passed by the High Court was not supported on the plea of the notice being illegal for any reason. A copy of the notice in question is on the record and the same does not, in our opinion, suffer from any illegality so as to make it non-est in the eye of law. 15. We may, before parting, refer to yet another contention that was raised by the defendan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a tenant under another landlord by accepting him to be the owner who had derived title from the former landlord, cannot be permitted to deny the latter's title, even when he is sought to be evicted by the latter on a permitted ground. 16. To the same effect is the decision of Privy Council in Krishna Prasad v. Baraboni Coal Concern Ltd. AIR 1937 PC 251, where Privy Council observed: The section postulates that there is a tenancy still continuing, it had its beginning at a given date from a given landlord. It provides that neither a tenant nor any one claiming through a tenant shall be heard to deny that that particular landlord had at that date a title to the property. In the ordinary case of a lease intended as a present demise (which is the case before the Board, on this appeal) the section applies against the lessee, any assignee of the terms and any sub-lessee or licensee. What all such persons are precluded from denying is that the lessor had a title at the date of the lease and there is no exception even for the case where the lease itself discloses the defect of title. The principle does not apply to disentitle a tenant from disputing the derivative title of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
