Back
2003 Supreme(Del) 315
High Court Of Delhi
RANI PUSHPA KUMARI DEVI - Appellant
Versus
EMBASSY OF SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC - Respondent
Suit 2409 of 1991
Decided On : 03/31/2003
KAMAL MEHTA, M.VADHVANI, RAJIV NAYAR, RANDHIR SINGH JAIN
Headnote:Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 107 — Eviction — Suit for possession and recovery of damages and mesne profits — Locus standi — Deceased landlady executing Will in favor of plaintiff and plaintiff granted Letter of Administration — Plaintiff a legal representative of deceased landlady has locus standi to file or continue the suit — Deceased having authority to terminate tenancy as per lease deed executed for five years — Plaintiff entitled to recover possession of suit premises — But as regards damages or mesne profits, since sanction under Section 86(1) of the Civil Procedure Code not obtained, no relief can be granted — Doctrine of diplomatic immunity under international law not applicable to defendant — Registration Act, 1908, Sections 17, 49 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 86 — Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972, Section 2 sch. Article 31.
Held: The doctrine of immunity under International Law, cannot allowed to be stretched beyond what is declared by the Supreme Court in Ali Akbars case (supra). In the circumstances, the defendant cannot be held immune from being sued for recovery of the suit premises. The argument in this respect is totally misconceived as Article 31 of the Schedule to the Act has no application and relevance to the facts of the present case. The defendant, thus, cannot claim to have immunity from jurisdiction of this Court once sanction to sue it stands accorded under Section 86(1) of the Code by the Central Government in favor of the plaintiff. Finding no infirmity in the sanction accorded under Section 86(1) of the Code, the plea of the defendant against its validity is negatived and the issue is answered in favor of the plaintiff.
The tenancy of the defendant in relation to the suit premises having been validly terminated, its continuance in occupation of the suit premises after 31st of December, 1990 has been rendered unauthorised. Being not entitled to hold possession of the suit premises beyond 31st December, 1990, the defendant must vacate and hand back vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is held entitled to the relief accordingly.
In regard to recovery of Rs. 4 lakhs on account of damages/mesne profits, for use and occupation of the suit premises, the suit being barred for want of sanction in that respect under Section 86(1) of the Code, the plaint is liable to be rejected and it is ordered accordingly.
( 1 ) THIS suit for possession and recovery of damages for use and occupation of the premises No. 15, Palam Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was filed by Rani Pushpa Kumari Devi, wife of late Dr. Nagendra Singh, claiming herself as owner-landlady of the aforesaid premises. The suit property was let out to the defendant under two separate lease agreements executed on 31st of December, 1985. One agreement pertaining to the entire suit property was executed between late Dr. Nagendra Singh as KARTA of HUF, Smt. Indira Kumari, Smt. Sarla Kumari, both daughters of late Yadvendra Singh, and Raj Singh S/o Shri Luxman Singhjee of Dungarpur on one hand and the defendant, the Embassy of Syrian Arab Republic on the other. The other lease agreement was entered into in respect of ground floor, a servant quarter, one motor garage, lawns and garden between Mrs. Indira Kumari and Mrs. Sarla Kumari, both daughters of late Yadvendra Singh and Shri Raj Singh S/o Shri Laxman Singhjee of Dungarpur, of the one part and the Embassy of Syrian Arab Republic of the other part.
( 2 ) AFTER the death of Dr. Nagendra Singh on 11th December, 1988 at Hague sometime in the month of October, 1989, his wife Rani Pushpa Kumari Devi was allegedly attorned as landlady of the entire premises. The defendant started paying rent to her @ Rs. 14,000/- per month and continued to do so up to the month of December, 1990.
( 3 ) DURING his lifetime, on 2nd January, 1983, Dr. Nagendra Singh had served a notice on the defendant stating that the premises were required by him and that no extension of the lease would be granted. This notice was served 24 months in advance to enable the defendant to make alternative arrangement. Rani Pushpa Kumari Devi also wrote to the defendant in January, 1989 seeking vacation of the premises within four months. On behalf of the defendant, the then Ambassador, Mohd. Khodor, in response thereto, sought to vacate the premises within a year. The defendant, however, failed to vacate the premises within that period. Ultimately, a notice dated 27. 11. 1990 was served on the defendant to vacate the premises on the expiry of the lease. However, the same went unheeded and the premises were not vacated.
( 4 ) IT is alleged that after expiry of the period of lease and service of notice dated 27. 11. 1989 (1990), occupation of the premises by the defendant was rendered unauthorised and consequently it has incurred the liability to pay damages for use and occupation @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per month being the prevailing market rate of rent at the relevant time. The plaintiff, however, restricted her claim on this account for the period from January, 1991 to April, 1991 only.
( 5 ) RANI Pushpa Kumari Devi obtained permission under Section 86 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, `the Code ) from the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi vide their letter No. 445/39/d III/ 89 dated 1. 1. 1990, to sue the defendant, before filing the present suit.
( 6 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, Rani Pushpa Kumari Devi died on 11th of August, 1996. Upon an application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code, in view of a Will executed by Rani Pushpa Kumari Devi in his favour, Shri A. K. Jajodia, the present plaintiff was substituted as plaintiff in place of Rani Pushpa Kumari Devi.
( 7 ) THE defendant in its written statement denied that Rani Pushpa Kumari Devi was the owner/landlady of the demised premises and questioned her competence to maintain the suit. It is pleaded that Dr. Nagendra Singh KARTA of HUF, Smt. Indira Kumari, Smt. Sarla Kumari, and Maharani Manhar Kunwar, who was succeeded by Shri Raj Singh after her death, were the owners/landlords of the suit premises, and that Rani Pushpa Kumari Devi was simply acting as their agent for collecting the rent from it on their behalf. It was denied that Rani Pushpa Kumari Devi was ever attorned as landlady of the entire premises or that the defendant paid rent to her in that capacit
