TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been decreed insofar it was prayed therein that a decree for possession be passed in favour of the respondents against the appellant with respect to the suit property bearing Municipal No. 22, Rajpur Road, Delhi. The suit has been retained with respect to the issues relating to mesne profits. The suit was filed in the year 1992, stating that the respondents were the co-owners of the suit property having purchased the same vide sale deed dated May 31, 1973 and that the appellant was an existing tenant in the premises and attorned to the respondents. The agreed rent to be paid each month to the previous owner of the property M/s.Diwan Sons Investment Pvt. Ltd. was paid to the respondents, which was in sum of ₹ 10,995/-per month. It w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the city of Delhi the Rent Control Legislation as per the Delhi Rent Control Act 1957 is not applicable to tenancies where monthly rent payable is ₹ 3,500/-per month and above. 4. In a suit for ejectment of a tenant the plea by the plaintiff is that it is the landlord that the tenancy stands determined; in Delhi, only three issues would arise for consideration: (i) Whether there exists a landlord-tenant relationship; (ii) Whether the rent of the premises is ₹ 3,500/-and above; and (iii) Whether the tenancy stands validly determined? 5. In the instant case the first two ingredients have not been denied in the written statement. The only denial is, not to the fact of having received a notice determining the tenancy, but to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awn IA No. 11872/1994 under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, another application on the same plea and under the same provision of law could not be filed. 10. The contention is rejected by us and has been rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge for the reason order dated July 20, 2005 recording IA No. 11872/1994 being not pressed expressly grants liberty to the respondents to file a fresh application on the same plea. The ethos of the order dated July 20, 2005 is that if trial could not be completed expeditiously, the respondents could revisit the Court on the same plea. 11. As noted by us herein above, the only plea on which the parties were at variance was to the legal effect of the notice dated April 1, 1991, rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udice to the claim of my clients for arrear of rent at the contractual rate with interest thereon. 7. In order to ensure that you are property (sic.) served I am sending one copy each of this notice under RAD and Certificate of posting. A carbon copy is retained in my office for record. Yours faithfully, (R.P. Sharma) Advocate 13. The notice, vide para 5, determines the tenancy as of May 15, 1991, but makes it clear that the tenancy be treated as determined on such subsequent date if the appellant is of the opinion that the monthly tenancy comes to an end on some other date. 14. We have extracted herein above the response in the written statement filed by the appellant to para 11 of the plaint and would simply highlight th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merit an issue to be settled. That apart, from a perusal of the issues settled between the parties, as per their respective pleadings, it is apparent that it is only issue No. 1 which requires adjudication and depending upon the decision thereon, issue No. 2 and No. 3 would follow; subject to proof of market rate of rent for purposes of determining issue No. 3. 17. Issue No. 1: Whether the tenancy of the defendant has been validly terminated; requires no evidence to be led inasmuch as the simple job is to note the language of the notice determining the tenancy and then determine its legal effect. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant could not make any submission as to in what manner the notice did not validly terminate the tenancy. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tenant becomes that of a tenant holding over. In law a tenant becomes a tenant holding over, if after the tenancy being determined there is evidence that the consideration for occupying the premises was tendered as rent by the tenant and accepted by the landlord as rent. The reason is that a tenancy is a bilateral contract between the parties and its bilateral continuation has to be evidenced by a bilateral consensus ad-idem. 21. Looked at from any angle, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is correct, and before bringing the curtains down we would like to pen down that instant proceedings reflect a lackadaisical approach in dealing with the suit. 22. A vague plea which merited no consideration was taken into consideration an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
