The court clarified the definition of 'premises' under the Delhi Rent Control Act and established the legal validity of terminating a tenancy by efflux of time.

( 1 ) THE present suit was instituted by the plaintiff seeking for a decree of possession of the open plot with a boundary wall and flooring over half portions numbering WZ/ 36-A, (New Municipal no. 116-B), Ganesh Nagar Extn. , Najafgarh Road, New delhi) alongwith a decree for payment of rs. 30,000/- as damages for use and occupation of the plot.

( 2 ) IT is stated in the plaint that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff namely, late Smt. Sushila Devi Bhalla, who is the mother of the plaintiff inducted the defendant as a tenant in respect of the aforesaid suit property at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000. 00 payable in advance on or about 10th day of each English calendar months. The aforesaid lease was granted for 11 months in the first instance which was renewable at the option of the lessee for a further period of 11 months and thereafter with the mutual consent of both the parties on terms and conditions being agreed upon at that time. Clause 7 of the said deed provided that the lease could be terminated on two months notice by either side whereas Clause 8 thereof provided that the lessee would not carry out any structural additions or alterations to the said premises without the consent of the lessor but could make cabins, partitions etc. as mutually agreed upon from time to time by both the parties in writing. It is stated in the plaint that after execution of the aforesaid lease deed the same was never renewed and it came to an end by efflux of time. It is also stated that late Smt. Sushila devi Bhalla, the mother of the plaintiff expired on 19. 11. 1982 and after her demise the aforesaid suit property vested absolutely on the plaintiff and that in respect of the same a Relinquishment Deed was also executed by the two sisters of the plaintiff but as a measure of abundant caution and without prejudice to the rights and contentions, a registered notice dated 2. 4. 1985 was issued to the defendant by the plaintiff terminating the tenancy with effect from 9th day of May, 1985 or in any case with effect from 30. 4. 1985. It is further stated that in spite of receipt of the said notice, the defendant did not vacate the premises and failed to handover vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and, therefore, the present suit was filed seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the defendant by filing a written statement contending, inter alia, that the defendant had sent a cheque for entire arrears of rent including the amount of rs. 30,000/- for the period from 10. 12. 1982 to 9. 5. 1985 which was encashed and, therefore, the amount of Rs. 30,000. 00 as claimed in the plaint is not due and payable any more.

( 4 ) IT was also stated that the defendant is a tenant in respect of the entire suit property including pacca flooring, boundary wall and constructed roof thereon alongwith bath and latrine therein and, therefore, the said property would come within the ambit of the definition of premises as laid down in Section 2 (1) of the delhi Rent Control Act and, therefore, the present suit filed in this Court was not maintainable. It was also stated that the mother of the plaintiff kept on receiving the rent from the defendant in respect of the said lease deed till she died on 19. 12. 1982 and, therefore, the lease deed could not have expired by efflux of time and that the tenancy continued, in terms of which for termination of the tenancy two months notice was required to be served on the defendant and in absence thereof the suit is liable to be dismissed. It was also stated that no suit for mandatory injunction could be filed in the year 1985 as constructions were made by the defendant some time in the year 1973-74 and, therefore, the suit is barred by limitation and also by the principle of promissory estoppel.

( 5 ) IN the light of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed in the suit:-

ISSUES 1. Whether the suit is properly valued for the