9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otected under the provisions of Rent Control Act and the landlord tenant relationship having been severed by notice served by the plaintiffs under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (in short the T.P. Act), the plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment and decree for possession. The pleas of the defendant even if accepted do not affect the entitlement of the plaintiffs for possession of the premises as held in M/s. Payal Vision Ltd. Vs. Radhika Choudhary 2012(9) SCALE 105. Reliance is also placed on Punjab National Bank Vs. Sh. Virendra Prakash Anr. 2012 V AD (DELHI) 373 to contend that existence of relationship of landlord tenant, factum of premises not having protection of Delhi Rent Control Act and the factum that tenancy was terminated by service of legal notice not being disputed in the written statement, the decree is required to be passed in favour of the landlord. Even de-hors the issue of termination of tenancy, if the period of lease expires, the tenant is liable to vacate the premises. Reference is made to Ashwani Bhatia (Sh.) Vs. Sh. Suresh Rastogi Anr. 2012 IV AD (DELHI) 315. 3. Learned counsel for the defendants on the other hand contends that the defendan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f landlord tenant nor the last rent paid. The case of the defendants is that the defendants spent substantial amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on getting the property renovated, painted and improved. Further the plaintiffs had agreed for the extension of lease and categorically stated that there was no need to execute a fresh lease. Thus, though the defendants had even got purchased the stamp papers for execution of the fresh lease, however on the assurance of the plaintiffs that they will not get the premises vacated, no further lease deed was entered into. It is further contended that the plaintiffs have burdened the defendants with extra electricity charge. Thus, in nutshell the case of the defendants is that the defendants were orally assured of extension of the period of lease and they had spent money on renovation. 6. It may be noted that no counter claim has been filed by the defendants. After the expiry of lease period on 11th January, 2002, no fresh lease deed was executed. Thus thereafter there is a month to month lease between the parties for the revocation of which a notice dated 14th December, 2011 has already been received by the defendants. Even assuming a further lease o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Civil Procedure and prays for passing of the decree on the basis of admission. Having said that we must add that whether or not there is a clear admission upon the two aspects noted above is a matter to be seen in the fact situation prevailing in each case. Admission made on the basis of pleadings in a given case cannot obviously be taken as an admission in a different fact situation. That precisely is the view taken by this Court in Jeevan Diesels Electricals Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the High Court where this Court has observed: Whether or not there is a clear, unambiguous admission by one party of the case of the other party is essentially a question of fact and the decision of this question depends on the facts of the case. The question, namely, 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 landlo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eged by the Plaintiff. 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. Even if the premises were let out for commercial and not residential use, the fact remained that the Defendant-Respondent entered upon and is occupying the property as a tenant under the Plaintiff. The nature of this use may be relevant for determination of mesne profits but not for passing of a decree for possession against the Defendant. 11. Incidentally, the Defendant appears to have raised in the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not replied. Para 6 reads as under: That since the Defendant had carried out substantial structural changes and further did not comply with the covenants of the lease agreement the Plaintiff was compelled to serve a notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The said notice was duly served upon the Defendant and no reply to the said notice has been received by the Plaintiff or its Counsel. 13. In reply, the Defendant has not denied the service of a notice upon the Defendant. Instead para 6 is entirely dedicated to the Defendant's claim that the whole structure standing on the site today has been constructed by her out of her own money. The Defendant has not chosen to deny even impliedly leave alone specifically that notice dated 17th March 2003 was not served upon 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
