Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
INTHECOURTOFMs.SUNENASHARMA
Addl.DisttJudge03(SE)
SAKETCOURTSCOMPLEX:NEWDELHI
CSNo.373/2015
UniqueCaseIDNo.02406C0348462015
DateofInstitution:13.12.2014
Dateofdecision:04.05.2016
AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrversusAshokBiswal
ORDER
2. Brieflystatedtheplaintiffscaseasnarratedintheplaintisthat
plaintiffsarethecoownerofthepremisesno.97,SouthParkApartment,B
BlockDDAFlats,Kalkaji,NewDelhi110019,(hereinafterreferredas'suit
property')whichwasletouttodefendantvideleasedeeddated02.06.2014
fortheperiodof11monthsatmonthlyrentofRs.42,000/whichwas
payableinadvancebychequeorcashonorbefore7thdayofeachEnglish
calendermonth.Asperthetermsofleasedeed,ineventofdefaultofrent
fortwoconsecutivemonthstheleasedeedshallcometoanendandshall
bedeemedterminatedwithoutnoticefromeitherside.Thereleventclause
CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
Page2of15
oftheleasedeedreadsasunder:
Clause II (a) That the lessee shall pay the monthly rent of Rs.
42,000/(RupeesFortyTwoThousandOnly)permonth,inadvance
bycheque/cashonorbefore7thdayofeachEnglishCalendermonth.
ClauseIII(a).....Itisagreedandunderstoodthatintheeventof
defaultofpaymentofrentonthepartoftheLesseefortwomonths
consecutively this Lease Agreement shall forthwith automatically
cometoanendanddeemedterminatedwithoutnoticefromeither
side.
CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
Page3of15
anattempttodeliverthenoticetothedefendantbyhandbutdefendant's
wiferefusedtoacceptthesameandinsteaddefendantsent lettersdated
06.10.2014, 15.10.2014 & 30.10.2014 to plaintiff wherein he admitted
defaultonhispartforpaymentofrentforthemonthofSeptemberand
Octoberbuthetriedtofalselyportraythathewastryingtoreachoutto
plaintiffstomakeaforementionedpayments.
4. Itisfurtheraverredthatsincethedefendantfailedtovacate
the premises even after termination of lease agreement therefore, he is
liabletopaydamagesforunauthorizeduseandoccupationofsuitpremises
w.e.f 01.09.2014 till handing over of possession at the rate of agreed
monthlyrentoratsuchratewhichtheCourtdeemsfit.
CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
Page4of15
entering into lease deed defendant had paid Rs. 1,26,000/ which is
inclusiveofsecuritydepositequivalenttotwomonthsrentandadvancerent
ofonemonth.Defendantdeniedthathecommittedanydefaultinpayment
ofrentandsubmittedthatthechequepaidtowardsadvancepaymentof
rentforthemonthofAugustgotdelayedanddishonoredonaccountof
someconfusionbutasandwhendefendantcametoknowaboutsaidfact
hemadethepaymenton03.09.2014andtherefore,therewasnodefault
perse.Itisfurtherstatedthatplaintiffsfailedtogetthegaragevacatedand
to hand over its possession to the defendant despite defendant's having
approachedthemseveraltimesandinsteadwiththeirmalafideintentionto
getthepremisesvacatedfromthedefendant,plaintiffsstoppedaccepting
therentfromthedefendantsoastomakeagroundforseekingvacation
underClauseIII(a)ofleasedeed.Defendantscategoricallydeniedtohave
receivedanylegalnoticefromtheplaintiffasallegedintheplaintandalso
deniedtheirliabilitytopayanydamages.
CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
Page5of15
8. Inreplytotheapplication,defendantacceptedhisadmission
regardingtheexecutionofleasedeeddated02.06.2014betweenhimand
the plaintiff but he took the plea lease as per the terms of lease deed
expired on May, 2015 when present lis was already pending before the
Court and during the pendency of suit plaintiff accepted a sum of Rs.
1,26,000/towardspaymentof rentfromdefendanton22.050.2015i.e.
afterexpiryofleaseperiodandacceptanceofsaidpaymentbytheplaintiff
tentamountstowaiveroftheirobjection.Itisfurthersubmittedthatthe
pleaofterminationofleasetakenbytheplaintiffisfraudulentandisnot
sustainableintheeyesoflaw.Itisfurthersubmittedthatthoughthelease
expiredduetoeffluxoftimeduringpendencyofpresentcasebuttheright
ofthedefendanttoremaininpossessionissubsistingandinabsenceofany
freshleasedeedthetenancyhasbecomemonthtomonthtenancywhich
hasneverbeendeterminedaspertheprovisionsofTransferofPropertyAct.
Itisfurtherstatedplaintiff'splearegardingdefaultinpaymentofrentand
deemedterminationofleasedeedonthatcountisatriableissueasthe
samerequiresdetailedevidenceandhence,thecircumstancesofthecasedo
notcallforinvocationofOrder12Rule6CPC.Itisfurtheraverredthat
writtenstatementhastobereadintotalityandnoconclusioncanbedrawn
byreadingtheavermentsinpeacemeal.Itisfurtherstatedthatpresentsuit
for possession in itself is a premature suit therefore, no averment or
CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
Page6of15
admissionsaregoodenoughtopassadecreeunderOrder12Rule6CPC.It
isfurtherstatedthatsincenoticeofterminationwasneverserveduponthe
defendant,therefore,theleaseisstillsubsistingandnodecreeofpossession
underOrder12Rule6CPCcanbepassed.
CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
Page7of15
possessiononthegroundthatinviewofclearandunequivocaladmissions
of defendant in the written statement regarding execution of the lease
agreement and thereby existence of relationship of tenant and landlord
betweendefendantandplaintiff,regardingtermoftenancyandrateofrent;
theplaintiffisentitledfordecreeofpossessionunderOrder12Rule6CPC.
12. Itisarguedonbehalfofdefendantthattheplaintiffshavefiled
presentsuitforseekingpossessiononthegroundofforfeitureunderSection
111(g)TPAct bytakingthepleaofconsecutivedefaultsinpaymentof
rentbutthesamehasbeencategoricallydeniedbythedefendantinhis
written statement wherein he has specifically averred that it was the
plaintiff who deliberately refused to take rent from the defendant and
hence,thequestionofconsecutivedefaultsinpaymentofrentisatriable
issue,thus,thisisnotafitcaseforpassingjudgmentunderOrder12Rule
6 CPC. It is further urged that the second plea taken by the plaintiff
regardingexpiryofleasebyeffluxoftimeisalsonottenableasevenafter
expiryofleaseperiodplaintiffskeptacceptingtherentfromthedefendant
and hence, the tenancy became month to month tenancy which is
determinablebywayofnoticeofterminationasperSection106ofTransfer
ofPropertyAct,1882.
13. Percontra,thecounselforplaintiffarguedthatpaymentofRs.
1,26,000/ through demand draft from defendant was accepted only
towardsarrearsandnottowardsfuturerentpayableafterinstitutionofsuit
CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
Page8of15
or expiry of lease deed and that too was accepted during pendency of
presentsuit,therefore,samecannotbetreatedaswaiveroftermination.He
furtherarguedthatsaidpaymentwasacceptedonlyunderprotestwhichis
alsoevidentfromthefactthattheplaintiffscontinuedwiththeirinstantsuit
forseekingpossessionevenafteracceptanceofsaidpayment.Hefurther
submittedthatinviewofthelawlaiddownbytheHon'bleDelhiHighCourt
inthematterof M/sJeevanDieselandElectricalsVs.M/sJasbirSingh
Chadha (HUF) & Ors. : RFA No. 179/2011 decided on 25.03.2011,in
suitsforpossessionbyalandlord,technicaldefenceswithrespecttonotices
should not be permitted. He further argued that even in said case the
tenancywascreatedonlyfor11monthsanditwasheldbytheHon'bleHigh
CourtthatnonoticeunderSection106,TPActwasrequiredinviewofthe
factthattenancywascreatedforfixedperiodof11monthsandsamestood
expiredbyeffluxoftimeaswell.
14. AsperSection111ofTPAct,tenancycomestoanendinevent
ofvariouscontingenciesenumeratedtherein.Oneofthemisbyeffluxof
time as mentioned in Clause (a) where tenancywas created for a fixed
periodandsecondly,bywayof forfeitureas is mentionedinClause(g)
thereof.Incaseofforfeiturewhichmayhappenincasethelesseebreaks
anycondition whichprovides that onbreach thereof,the lessormayre
enter,thelessorhastogiveanoticeinwritingtothelesseeofhisintention
todeterminethelease.Hence,u/sec111(g),thelessorhastherightto
determinealeaseforbreachofcovenantbutthatdoesnotipsofactoputan
CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
Page9of15
endtothelease;itonlyexposesthetenanttosuchariskandgivesaright
tothelessortodeterminetheleaseifhesoelects.Asper2ndprovisoofSec.
112ofTPAct,acceptanceofrentbylessorafterinstitutionofsuittoeject
the lessee on the ground of forfeiture does not amount to a waiver of
forfeiture.
16. Thecontentionraisedbydefendant'scounseltoopposeinstant
applicationistwofold.Firstly,thatatthetimeofinstitutionofpresentsuit
therewasnocauseofactioninfavouroftheplaintifftoseekejectmenton
the ground of determination of lease by efflux of time as the lease has
expired only on 03.05.2015 and hence, no decree for possession under
Order 12 Rule 6 CPC can be passed in the instant suit. The second
CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
Page10of15
contentionraisedbydefendant'scounselisthatplaintiffbyacceptingthe
demanddraftdated22.05.2015forthesumofRs.1,26,000/towardsrent
from the defendant has waived off determination of lease and status of
defendanthasbecomethatofatenantbyholdingoverunderSection116
TP Act and such tenancy can be determined only by issuing notice of
determinationinaccordancewithSection106TPAct.
17. However,Idonotfindmeritsinanyoftheabovecontentions.
Asregardthefirstcontention,Iamoftheviewthatthoughasageneralrule
plaintiffshallnotbeallowedtotakeadvantageofthecauseofactionarising
subsequently,butsaidgeneralruleisalwayssubjecttoexceptionsandcan
be deviated from, if the court find it necessary to do so to promote
substantialjusticeandprovidedtherulesoffairplayarenotviolated.My
viewgetsfortifiedfromthejudgmentofHon'bleApexCourtinPashupati
Venkateshwarlu Vs. Motor & General Traders, 1975 (1) SCC, 770
whereinitisobservedthat:
We feel the submissions devoid of substance. First about the
jurisdiction and propriety vis-a-vis circumstances which come into
being subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings. It is
basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be
judged to exist as on the date a suit or institutes the legal
proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that procedure is the
handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process. If a fact,
arising after the lis has come to court and has a fundamental impact
on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it, is brought
diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind
to events which stultify or render inept the decretal remedy. Equity
justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision
or fairplay is not violated, with a view to promote substantial justice
subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling factors or just
circumstances. Nor can we contemplate any limitation on this power
CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
Page11of15
18. Oncetherelationshipofalandlordandtenantisadmittedby
thedefendantandtheleaseisgovernedbyTPActonaccountofrental
beingmorethan 3500/,the onlyquestionlefttobedeterminedbythe
Courtbeforeawardingadecreeofejectmentinfavourofthelandlordisto
see whether the lease has been determined in accordance with the
provisionsofSection111TPAct.Here,admittedly,theleasewascreated
forthelimitedperiodof11monthswhichcametoanendon03.05.2015.
In view of said admitted position on record, nothing survives for the
defendanttocontesttheplaintiff'sclaimtoseekhisejectmentandinsaid
circumstances,relegatingthepartiestoanewroundoflitigationwillnot
serve any purpose. Time and again it has been held in plethora of
judgmentsbytheHon'bleApexCourtthatapragmaticapproachshouldbe
adoptedbytheCourtsinordertodiscouragethefalseclaimsanddefences
raisedbyunscrupuloustenantswhoconsideritinherentrightnottovacate
thepremisesevenafterterminationoftheirtenancyastheyfeelthatthey
oughttovacatethetenantedpremisesonlywhentheCourtspassadecree
forpossessionagainstthem.Suchpracticeneedtobediscouragedasthe
CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
Page12of15
19. In Anil Suri Vs. Vikram Khanna & Ors. CM (M) No.
1341/2008 decided on 16.09.2009, the similar question had come up
beforetheHon'bleHighCourtwhereinthesuitforejectmentwasfiledon
thegroundofforfeiturebutduringthependencyofthesuittheleasealso
expiredbyeffluxoftimeanditwasheldbytheHon'bleHighCourtthat
assumingthattheleasewasnotvalidlyterminatedvidelegalnoticedated
10.01.2008butinanyeventlessorbecameentitledtorecoverpossessionof
thesuitpropertyastheinitialleasecametoanendbyeffluxoftimeon
14.07.2008.Itwasfurtherheldthatsincethepetitionersthereinhavefiled
thesuitforejectmentofthetenant,itisevidentthattherecannotbeany
possibilityofanymutualitybetweenthemwithregardtorenewaloflease.
20. Evenintheinstantcase,asperthetermsofleaseagreement
theleasewasextendablebymutualconsentofpartiessubjecttoincreaseof
rent by 10% but, in case of extention of lease a fresh agreement was
requiredtobemadeandsignedbythelessorandthelessee.Considering
thefactthatevenafterleasehavingcometoanendbyeffluxoftime,the
plaintiff continued with the present suit for ejectment itself makes it
abundantly clear that there was no intention on the part of plaintiff to
extendthelease.
CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
Page13of15
21. Thesecondcontentionthatacceptanceofarrearsofrentbythe
plaintiff amounts to waiver is also bereft of merits as the draft of Rs.
1,26,000/wasacceptedbyplaintiff'scounselduringthependencyofthe
presentproceedingsandsamewasacceptedtowardsarrearsofrentforthe
month of September, October and November, 2014. Acceptance of said
arrears nowhere shows the intention of plaintiffs to treat the lease as
continuingandthesameisalsoevidentfromthefactthatdespiteaccepting
said payment from defendant; the plaintiff continued with the present
litigation.EvenapplyingtheanalogyofSection112TPAct,theacceptance
ofrentafterinstitutionofasuitforejectmentcannotbetreatedaswaiver
andhence,theargumentthatafteracceptanceofsaidpayment,defendant
becamethetenantbyholdingoveristotallyfallacious.
CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
Page14of15
preliminaryobjectiontakenbythedefendantregardinglackofpecuniary
jurisdiction, improper valuation and deficiency in court fees are wholly
misconceivedandmeritless.
23. Inviewoftheaforementioneddiscussion,Iamoftheviewthat
suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed not only for the relief of
possessionbutalsoforthereliefofarrearsofrentaswellasdamagesonthe
basisofadmissions.Afterexpiryofleaseperiod,tenancycametoanend
w.e.f.03.05.2015andinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofSection108(m)
TPAct,thelesseewasboundtohandoverthevacantphysicalpossessionof
thesuitpropertyafterdeterminationofleaseandsincethedefendantfailed
tohandoverthepossessionofthesuitpremisesevenafter03.05.2015,his
possessioninthesuitpropertybecameunauthorizedandillegalforwhich
heisliabletopaymesneprofits/damagestotheplaintiff.Inthepresent
suit,plaintiffhasclaimeddamages@monthlyrentwhichisadmittedlyRs.
42,000/permonth.Accordingly,defendantisliabletopaydamagestothe
plaintiff @ Rs. 42,000/ per month w.e.f. 04.05.2015 till the date of
handing over of possession. As regard the arrears of rent, admittedly,
plaintiffhasreceivedthesumofRs.1,26,000/towardsthepaymentofrent
for3monthsandinviewthereof,thesaidreliefforarrearsofrentforsaid
periodhasbecomeinfructuous.Plaintiffishowever,entitledforrecoveryof
arrearsofrentw.e.f.December,2014tilltheexpiryofleaseperiod.From
saidduesoffivemonths,plaintiffshallbeentitledtorecoverduesoftwo
monthrentafteradjustingrefundablesecurityofRs.1,26,000/whichis
CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
Page15of15
(SunenaSharma)
Addl.DisttJudge03/SouthEast
SaketCourtsComplex,NewDelhi
Announced&dictatedin
theOpenCourton04.05.2016.
CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal