9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portion of property No. B-59/1, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the suit property ) as shown in red colour in the site plan Ex. P.2. It was averred in the plaint that the Respondent had taken from the appellant one hall, three offices-cum-store room and toilets for workmen in the ground floor and two mezzanine halls on the mezzanine floor of the suit property shown in the red colour in the plan attached with the plaint. That the suit property had been taken by the respondent as a licencee in 1981 for a period of 11 months at a monthly licencee fee of Rs. 4500/- and that respondent continued to remain in possession even after the expiry of the period of licence and claimed himself to be tenant of the suit property at a rent of Rs. 4,500/- per month and that appellant accepted the respondent as his tenant. It was also alleged in the plaint that respondent had made several unauthorised additions/alterations etc. which had been shown in the green colour in the plan attached with the plaint, Appellant did not claim possession in respect of unauthorised additions/alterations made by the respondent in the suit. [We were informed during the course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een colour in the plan attached with the plaint alleged to have been unauthorisedly constructed by the respondent had in fact been let out as it is from the commencement of the tenancy in May 1980. It was stated that the shed in the rear and the mezzanine portion shown in the green colour in the plan attached with the plaint were in existence at the time of letting out of the premises as was clear from the rent agreement originally executed although the said portion had been scored off since the appellant did not want to mention the same as he was apprehensive of the trouble from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Liability to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per day was also denied. Appellant filed replication to the written statement filed by the respondent denying the averment in the written statement and reiterated the averment set out in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the Trial Court: i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession? OPD ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages/mesne profits for use and occupation of the disputed property from the defendants? OPP. iii) Whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... creed. It was held that tenancy had been terminated validly by giving two months notice in terms of clause 15 of the lease/licence document. Since the lease/licence document was not registered document and the tenancy was from month to month the same could be terminated by giving 15 days notice under Section 106 of the Act. Further, the Trial Court held that the suit had been filed for the entire tenanted premises and not for a part of it as alleged by the respondent. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court the respondent filed the first appeal which has been disposed of by the impugned order. The findings recorded on issue Nos. 2,4,5 to 7 were not contested by either of the parties and accordingly they were confirmed. Findings on issues No. 1 and 3 were contested. The High Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and accepted the appeal. It set aside the order of the trial Court and held that the appellant had let out the entire premises including the portions shown in green in plan Ex.P.2. That the appellant had claimed eviction of the respondent only from a portion of the tenanted premises which amounted to splitting of the tenancy which was not per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in his written statement pleaded that the premises described in para 2 in the plaint as having been let out to the respondent was substantially correct. This reply clearly amounts to admission of the allegations made in the corresponding paragraph of the plaint. That in view of this admission made by the respondent the High Court has gravely erred in recording a finding to the effect that the appellant had let out the portion shown in green as well to the respondent. That the High Court has built a new case for the respondent, which was not even pleaded by him, in holding that on the expiry of period of licence the respondent was taken as a tenant of the entire property of the appellant which was in occupation of the respondent. It was also contended that there was no registered instrument executed creating tenancy therefore tenancy will be deemed to be from month to month terminable with 15 days notice and the High Court has erred in holding to the contrary. As against this, Shri Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the green portion was also in existence during the year 1980-81. It was not made part of the licence agreement beca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was specifically mentioned in the rent notes executed between the parties, i.e., Exs. D1 and P3. The accommodation shown in these documents is the same as had been mentioned in para 2 of the plaint and shown in red colour in the site plan Ex. P2. The line shed in the back portion of the premises and part of open premises in the said two documents had been scored off and had been initialed by both the parties. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that portion shown in green colour in the site plan Ex. P2 was a part of the tenanted premises but the appellant did not want this clause to be retained in these two documents because of some apprehensions of trouble from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which found favour with the High Court cannot be accepted. In fact, by deleting this line from the agreement, the intention of the landlord becomes clear that the portion which had been scored off was not intended to be let out and form a part of the tenanted premises. In so far as the accommodation shown in these two documents, i.e. one hall, 3 office cum store rooms and toilet on the ground floor and two mezzanine halls on the mezzanine floor, there is no dispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent on the ground that as tenancy between the parties had been created for manufacturing purposes the same could be terminated only after giving six months notice to quit as provided under Section 106 of the Act, which was not done. The trial Court has negatived this submission by holding that according to the provision of Section 106 of the Act a lease for manufacturing purpose is deemed to be a lease on year to year basis but the same was subject to the contract to the contrary if any between the landlord and the tenant. The landlord and the tenant can agree to create a tenancy even for manufacturing purpose for a period of less than one year. That in Clause 15 of the lease document it is specifically mentioned that the tenancy could be terminated by either of the parties by giving notice of two months. That the tenancy of the respondent had been validly terminated by serving a notice in terms of Clause 15 of the lease document. The High Court has not given any reason for reversing this finding and holding that the termination of the tenancy was invalid. We agree with the view taken by the Trial Court that the tenancy has been validly terminated. Clause (1) of Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year to year terminable by six months notice. In the present case there is a clear finding to the effect that the lease in question was not from year to year or for a period exceeding one year. Therefore, even though the lease may be for a manufacturing purpose, since the lease was not from year to year, six months notice was not required. A manufacturing lease which is not from year to year does not require six months notice of termination. It will fall in the second half of Section 106, requiring fifteen days notice of termination. A lease from month to month or a lease other than a lease from year to year is terminable by fifteen days notice. Hence the notice in the present case is a valid notice to quit. The High Court, having come to the conclusion that the lease was not for a period exceeding one year, and was not a lease from year to year erred in holding that six months notice to quit was required. Such a notice is required, provided there is no contract to the contrary, only when a manufacturing lease is, or is deemed to be, from year to year. This not being the case, the lease is terminable by fifteen days notice even if the lease is a manufacturing lease. We r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
