Smt. Kamlesh Singh vs Sh. Praveen Bhargave and Another

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—The challenge by means of this regular first u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 present appeal is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.11.2010 whereby the suit of the Respondents/plaintiffs has been decreed with respect to possession against the Appellant/Defendant. The trial court has found that the Appellant admits himself to be a tenant at Rs. 5,000/- per month. It is therefore, not in dispute that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the rent is more than Rs. 3500/- per month as a result of which there is no protection to the tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Appellant was inducted in the premises through an unregistered lease deed dated 19.6.2004 which thus cannot be looked into by virtue of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1882 consequently, the monthly tenancy was terminated by a notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Admittedly, the tenancy was terminated by the legal notice dated 26.7.2009 which was replied by the Appellant/Defendant vide reply dated 29.7.09.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant has strongly argued that the suit itself was liable to be dismissed and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K B Saha and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Development Consultant Ltd. (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 564 on the basis of which judgment, it was argued that the terms of the unregistered lease deed cannot be looked into and the suit is to be dismissed. I cannot understand how this judgment will apply because the admitted facts reproduced above show that the rent was above of Rs. 3500/- and the tenancy being a monthly tenancy was validly terminated by legal notice. In the judgment K B Saha (Supra) Supreme Court has observed that once the lease deed is not registered its terms cannot be looked into and thus it cannot be relied even for a collateral purpose. This, however, is not the issue in the present case.

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment/decree to persuade me to set aside the impugned judgment/decree.

The appeal is therefore dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

CM 2307/2011

Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM stands disposed of.

CM 2306/2011

Since the appeal has been disposed of hence, no orders are required to be passed. Dismissed.