Sh. Ashwani Bhatia vs Sh. Suresh Rastogi and Another

Valmiki J Mehta, J.

RFA No. 167/2012 and C.M. No. 6164/2012 (stay)

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 22.2.2012 decreeing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs/landlords for possession of the suit/tenanted premises on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The facts of the case are that the appellant/defendant took on rent the suit premises being House No. 97, second floor, Old Gupta Colony, Delhi-110009 from the respondents/plaintiffs/landlords under a registered rent agreement dated 13.8.2010. The period of tenancy was from 6.8.2010 to 5.7.2011 and the rate of rent was Rs. 14,200/- per month. The respondents/landlords claimed that the appellant/defendant paid rent only for two months i.e. August, 2010 and September, 2010 and thereafter failed to pay the rent as also the water charges. The respondent/plaintiff thereafter served a legal notice dated 8.1.2011 terminating the tenancy and to which the appellant/defendant sent a reply dated 5.2.2011. In the reply, it was claimed that the rent was paid and therefore the notice was illegal.

In the city of Delhi, the tenanted premises whose rent is more than Rs. 3,500/- per month, and the tenancy is a monthly tenancy, then such tenancy can be terminated by means of a legal notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). In case of fixed period tenancies, once the lease period under a registered lease deed expires, the tenancy expires by efflux of time, and there is no need even of terminating such tenancies by serving a notice u/s 106 of the Act.

In the present case, relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted and the rate of rent is also admitted to be more than Rs. 3,500/- i.e. Rs. 14,200/- per month. Dehors the issue of termination of tenancy, the period of lease has also expired on 5.7.2011. I have in the recent judgment reported as Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Ltd. Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) and Another, held that even if it is not proved that a legal notice was served prior to filing of the suit, service of summons of the suit can be taken as a notice u/s 106 of the Act. I have held that Court should take a pragmatic view in view of the legislative intendment as demonstrated by Act 3 of 2003, amending Section 106 of the Act. An SLP against the said judgment being SLP No. 15740/2011 has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 7.7.2011.

In view of the above, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment as there are no disputed questions of facts which require trial.

After the hearing, I put it to the counsel for the appellant as to whether the appellant is interested in taking time to vacate the suit premises but the counsel for the appellant states that the appellant invites a judgment.

The Supreme Court in its recent judgment in the case of Rameshwari Devi and Others Vs. Nirmala Devi and Others, has held that it is high time that dishonesty in litigation should be pre-empted and prevented by imposition of actual costs. 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. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed, and in the facts of the present case with costs of Rs. 15,000/- to be deposited in the account of Registrar General of this Court, maintained in UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi for being utilized towards juvenile justice. Costs be deposited within a period of four weeks from today.