Trilok Anand vs Roop Kishore Tuli

M.L. Mehta, J.—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 16.07.2012 of Learned Additional District Judge (Central) whereby he allowed the application Under Order 15-A CPC of the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant for possession and recovery of rent amount of Rs.1,15,000/- in the court of ADJ. The said suit was based on the premise that the respondent/plaintiff had purchased the suit premises from its owner Bihari Lal vide registered sale deed dated 28.07,2011. The petitioner/defendant was already tenant in the suit premises under Bihari Lal vide registered lease deed dated 5.9.2003 and subsequent lease deed dated 1.10.2005. After the expiry of the lease period, he continued to occupy the suit premises at the monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- and same was the position when the respondent/plaintiff purchased the suit premises from Bihari Lal. The respondent/plaintiff had issued him a notice on 8.8.2011 informing him about having purchased the suit premises and requesting him to pay the rent to him. The petitioner/defendant having failed, the plaintiff issued notice dated 22.11.2011 terminating the tenancy and calling upon him to vacate the premises and pay the damages. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order 15-A CPC, which was treated by the trial judge as under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC and was disposed of vide the impugned order. The petitioner was directed to pay the user charges @ Rs.20,000/- per month from 1.8.2011 till date within four weeks from the date of the order and also the future charges at the same rate till further orders. This order is under challenge in this petition.

The main ground of challenge that has been set up by the petitioner, who was the defendant in the suit, is that Bihari Lal had agreed to sell the suit premises to him for Rs.72 lakhs and he had paid Rs.10 lakhs to him as part payment of the consideration on 20.05.2011. His case was that after 20.05.2011 he was in occupation of the suit premises in his independent rights not as a tenant.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner/defendant and gone through the record. From the record, it is borne that after selling the suit premises to the plaintiff, Bihari Lal informed the petitioner/defendant in this regard and requested him to attorn to the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff also vide his letter dated 8.8.2011 informed the petitioner/defendant in this regard and demanded rent from 1.8.2011. Subsequently, he also issued a legal notice dated 22.11.2011 terminating his tenancy and calling upon him to vacate the suit premises and pay the damages. In the written statement, filed by the petitioner, he denied the receipt of legal notice dated 22.11.2011. He, however, filed his reply dated 12.12.2011 that would show the receipt of legal notice dated 22.11.2011 by him. In the written statement, he had also denied to be tenant under Bihari Lal in terms of lease deed dated 5.9.2003 or 1.10.2005. However, he himself sent a legal notice dated 23.08.2011 to Bihari Lal claiming himself to be tenant in the suit premises since 2003 and further that he had ceased to be so w.e.f. 20.05.2011. He was claiming himself to be in occupation of the suit premises in his independent right as having purchased the same from Bihari Lal for Rs.72 lakhs and also having paid Rs.10 lakhs as part payment on 20.05.2011. He, however, could not produce any document to substantiate his claims in this regard. This was prima facie unbelievable that he would have agreed to purchase the suit premises for such a huge amount and paid a colossal amount of Rs.10 lakhs without any agreement or receipt. In any case, that was a dispute between him and Bihari lal. The petitioner in his notice dated 23.08.2011, addressed to Bihari Lal, had also admitted the latter having informed him about the sale of the suit premises to the plaintiff. From all these, it would be seen that he had the active knowledge of the suit premises having been sold by Bihari Lal to the respondent/plaintiff by registered sale deed. No action was taken by him to set up his claim on the suit premises except lodging a complaint with the police, which was neither of any worth nor sanctity. Thus, it stands established from the record that petitioner was a tenant under Bihari Lal and on receipt of notices from him as also from the plaintiff, he has not paid the rent or user charges w.e.f. 1.8.2011. In the impugned order learned ADJ has elaborately discussed all this factual position as borne out from the record. I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.