Harish Kumar vs Sohan Singh Gusain DECD Thr L.Rs.

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 9.12.2011 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff/landlord qua the relief of possession on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. In the city of Delhi tenanted premises whose rent exceeds `3,500/- per month, and where the tenancy is a monthly tenancy, such tenancy can be terminated by serving of the legal notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA). On the service of the notice a tenant becomes a trespasser in the erstwhile tenanted premises and is liable to hand over the vacant peaceful possession. In case of expiry of lease period by efflux of time no service of notice u/s 106 of the TPA is necessary.

In the present case, the premises in question is one shop bearing no. UG-39, Somdutt Chambers No.1, 5 Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. The premises were let out for a period of two years under a registered lease deed dated 14.12.2005 and the agreed rent was `7,000/- per month at the outset, and after 12 months the rent became `7,700/- per month. The tenant was also liable to pay the maintenance charges. The respondent/plaintiff sought to terminate the tenancy by the legal notice dated 14.6.2007 with effect from 31.8.2007. A subsequent legal notice dated 5.10.2007 was also sent to the appellant/defendant which he avoided and refused to receive. Notices were sent as the appellant/defendant was also in arrears towards rent of `1,22,900/- besides also certain unpaid maintenance charges. Dehors the issue of termination of tenancy by service of the notices, the lease period of two years in any case expired by efflux of time on 15.12.2007.

A reference to the written statement shows that there is no denial that there is a relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties. The appellant/defendant admitted the existence of the lease agreement dated 14.12.2005 which was said to be in continuation of an earlier agreement dated 15.12.2003 and which tenancy expired by efflux of time on 15.12.2007. The receipt of legal notice is also admitted, and, in any case the lease expired by efflux of time on 15.12.2007. The aforesaid admissions are made in paras 1, 2, 7 and 12 of the preliminary submission in the written statement besides in other paras of the written statement.

Obviously, therefore there are no disputed questions of fact which require trial as there are admissions of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, rent being more than `3,500/- per month, and the tenancy terminated by efflux of time besides the fact that two legal notices dated 14.6.2007 and 5.10.2007 terminating the tenancy were served.

At the conclusion of hearing I asked the counsel for the appellant as to whether the appellant is interested in taking time to vacate the premises. Counsel for the appellant states that he has instruction to argue on merits. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Saket Cultural Club (Regd) Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, to argue that since the admissions are not categorical, there cannot be a decree on admissions. Reliance is also similarly placed upon another judgment in the case of Meera Gupta Vs. Dinesh Chand and others,

In my opinion, the judgment in the case of Saket Cultural Club (supra) will not apply inasmuch as in the facts of the present case there are clear-cut admissions. So far as the judgment of Meera Gupta (supra) is concerned the same in fact supports the respondent/plaintiff. The facts of the case narrated above show that there are no disputed questions of fact which require trial.

There are certain sections of tenants in this country who insist on continuing in possession of tenanted premises even after expiry of tenancy by efflux of time and even after notice is sent to them to vacate the tenanted premises. Such obdurate tenants insist on falsely contesting litigations so as to continue the illegal occupation of the tenanted premises. In the present case, we are in April 2012 and the appellant/defendant/tenant is overstaying from December, 2007.

The Supreme Court in the recent judgment of Rameshwari Devi and Others Vs. Nirmala Devi and Others, has held that it is high time that dishonesty in litigations should not be allowed to harm/prejudice the opposite party. The Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi (supra) has held that Courts must now award actual costs to preempt dishonesty in litigations. I am also empowered to impose actual costs by virtue of Volume V of the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders (as applicable to Delhi) Chapter VI Part I Rule 15. Since there is no merit in the appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed, with costs of `25,000/-. Costs be paid within 2 weeks from today.