TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the plaintiff filed under Order XII Rule 6, C.P.C. Hence the present revision was filed before the High Court. The said revision application came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge or the High Court on August 25, 2004. 2. In order to dispose of the present petition, brief facts may be detailed herein. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages/mesne profit against the defendant-petitioners alleging therein that the premises in question was let out to the defendant- petitioners jointly on a monthly rent of ₹ 2500/- vide agreement dated September 4, 1977. The tenancy commenced with effect from October 1, 1977. The rent was increased from time to time at the rate of 10 per cent per month. For the period from September 1, 1996 to August 31, 2001 the defendant- petitioners paid rent at the rate of ₹ 33277-per month. On July 28,2001 the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 served a notice on the defendant-petitioners under Section 6A read with Section 8 of the Delhi Kent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ), notifying therein that the rent would be increased by 10 per cent with effect from September 1, 2001. Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity of the provisions of the Act does not arise. The defendants did not dispute their liability to pay the arrears of rent from September, 2004 but they denied the liability to pay damages/mesne profits. 4. The main thrust of the defendants was that this tenancy which was entered into between the plaintiff and the four defendants namely; Sh. Charanjit Lal Mehra, Sh. Ashok Kumar Mehra, Sh. Aswini Kumar Mehra and Sh. Yashpal Mehra was not a joint tenancy but it was an individual tenancy and each one of them had to pay his share towards the rent. Therefore, it was not a joint/common tenancy and as such the quantum of rent of each individual tenant did not exceed ₹ 3500/- per month. It was also contended that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has been taken to be one whereas there should have been four separate notices for four separate tenancies and this single notice cannot terminate the four tenancies. 5. From the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed certain issues and when the case was at the stage of evidence an application under Order XII Rule 6 was filed by the plaintiff on April 26, 2002 for passing a judgment on the admission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1993 the same was accepted by the landlady vide receipt dated May 24,1993. This cheque was tendered on behalf of the four brothers. Therefore the argument is advanced on the basis of the letter dated September 17,1992 that it is not a case of admission as the plaintiff herself treated it as a separate tenancy. The learned Single Judge examined the matter and found that this subsequent cheque of ₹ 60,000/- was sent on behalf of four brothers. Therefore, one isolated letter does not change the character of the tenancy and accordingly, learned Single Judge found that there is admission on the part of the defendants that there is a joint tenancy and the rent exceeded more than ₹ 3500/-. Therefore, on the admission of the defendants, learned Single Judge accepted the application under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. and passed a decree for eviction. Aggrieved against the said order, the present Special Leave Petition has been tiled. 6. A caveat was filed on behalf of plaintiff- respondent No. 1. Therefore, both the parties were heard at length. I hey have also filed their written submissions. 7. The only question that needs to be determined in the present case is whether ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther Govt. and Municipal rates, charges and taxes of all kinds shall be payable by the Lessor. Xx xx xx. A perusal of the lease deed clearly shows that the demised premises was taken on monthly rent of ₹ 2500/- by the sons of Late Devi Dass Mehra i.e. all the four brothers and it further says as follows: And whereas the Lessees have agreed to take the demised premises- on lease on the covenants and conditions mutually agreed to and appearing. Therefore, it clearly stipulates that this lease deed has been executed in favour of all the brothers jointly and it is a composite one and not individual one. Detailed perusal of the lease deed leaves no manner of doubt in the matter that this was a composite and joint tenancy and it was executed on behalf of the landlady on the one side and all the four brothers on the other side. The rent stipulated in the lease deed is ₹ 2500/- in to to. it is not disputed that the total rent now payable is more than ₹ 3500/-. It cannot be split up into four portions so as to bring the building within the told of Rent Act Therefore, we are of opinion that the tenancy in question was a joint/ composite one and it is not an i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
