Back
High Court Of Delhi
MERCURY TRAVELS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
MAHABIR PRASAD - Respondent
R.F.A. 684 of 1998
Decided On : 12/21/2000
ARUN KUMAR - EJECTMENT - SECTION 106 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - SUMMARY SUIT - Held, that the entire premises were subject matter of one tenancy for which rent was fixed at Rs. 6,000.00 p.m. and two lease deeds were executed for the sake of convenience of the appellant and rather as per the desire of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
Arun Kumar (1) Respondents herein had filed suit for ejectment and for recovery of money and mesne profits against appellant herein. By impugned judgment dated 31/08/1998 learned Additional District Judge has decreed the suit for recovery of possession of premises known as 2-A, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi also known as A-16, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi on a plot of land measuring 1800 sq. yds. with double storey building with cost. Decree for recovery of Rs. 24,000.00- and Rs. 5,734.00 is also passed in favour of the respondents herein. Mesne profits are awarded at the rate of Rs. 12,000.00 p.m. from 26/05/1992 onwards till handing over the possession of the suit property. The decree also injuncts the appellant, its servant, agent and relative from transferring, alienating or parting with possession of the suit property mentioned in the plaint. Direction is also given to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the property to the respondents within two months from the date of judgment. Appellant is aggrieved against the said judgment and decree and has filed R.F.A. 630/98 against the same. Even respondents herein are not fully satisfied with this decree and they vent their grievance insofar as rate at which mesne profits are decreed. According to their estimation it is too inadequate. Therefore, they have also filed R.F.A. 684/98 in which prayer is made that the mesne profits be awarded to them at the rate of Rs. 80,000.00 p.m. Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common-judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The entire premises were subject matter of one tenancy for which rent was fixed at Rs. 6,000.00 p.m. and two lease deeds were executed for the sake of convenience of the appellant and rather as per the desire of the appellant.
Issues: 1. Whether this Court got no jurisdiction to try the present suit as barred by Delhi Rent Control Act? OPD. 2. Whether the present suit is liable to be dismissed on account of nonjoinder of necessary parties? OPD. 3. Whether the present suit is bad for misjoinder of cause of action? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is bad on the account of supersession of material facts? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession of the suit property? OPP. 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs. 24,000.00along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.? OPP. 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP. 8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the damages for the use and occupation charges of the suit property. If so, at what rate and what amount? OPP. 9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of sum of Rs. 5,734.00 alongwith the interest with effect from 31/03/1992? OPP. Additional Issue: 10. Whether there is a valid sub-letting with the consent of the landlord in the premises in dispute, which is based on para 5 of the preliminary objection of the defendant? OPD. 11. Whether no valid notice was served upon the defendant, which is based upon para 3 of the preliminary objection? OPD. 12. Whether there are two separate tenancies existing in the premises in dispute? OPD. 13. Relief.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Two lease deeds were executed and got registered in respect of two portions of the premises in question. Merely because there are two lease deeds in respect of the premises, it will not necessarily follow that intention was to create two tenancies. 2. Even for creating one tenancy, in a given case, two lease deeds can be executed. 3. Intention of the parties in the case in hand was to create one tenancy evidenced by two lease deeds.
Final Decision: Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common-judgment.
( 1 ) RESPONDENTS herein had filed suit for ejectment and for recovery of money and mesne profits against appellant herein. By impugned judgment dated 31/08/1998 learned Additional District Judge has decreed the suit for recovery of possession of premises known as 2-A, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi also known as A-16, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi on a plot of land measuring 1800 sq. yds. with double storey building with cost. Decree for recovery of Rs. 24,000. 00- and Rs. 5,734. 00 is also passed in favour of the respondents herein. Mesne profits are awarded at the rate of Rs. 12,000. 00 p. m. from 26/05/1992 onwards till handing over the possession of the suit property. The decree also injuncts the appellant, its servant, agent and relative from transferring, alienating or parting with possession of the suit property mentioned in the plaint. Direction is also given to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the property to the respondents within two months from the date of judgment. Appellant is aggrieved against the said judgment and decree and has filed R. F. A. 630/98 against the same. Even respondents herein are not fully satisfied with this decree and they vent their grievance insofar as rate at which mesne profits are decreed. According to their estimation it is too inadequate. Therefore, they have also filed R. F. A. 684/98 in which prayer is made that the mesne profits be awarded to them at the rate of Rs. 80,000. 00 p. m. Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common-judgment.
( 2 ) FACTS, as they emerge from the pleadings and evidence of both the paries led before the Trial Court, may be stated before embarking upon the legal issues raised.
( 3 ) FATHER of respondent No. 1 namely, late Shri Krishna Prasada was the owner of the suit property. The appellant herein approached him in the year 1978 for leasing out me suit property for a period of 10 years. After discussions the suit property was leased out to the appellant for a period of 9 years and 360 days commencing from 1/08/1978. It is the case of the respondents herein that appellant requested the father of respondent No. 1 that appellant was advised by his Income-tax Consultant to prepare two lease deeds in respect of the suit property instead of a single lease deed and therefore, father of the respondent No. 1 was requested by appellant to execute two lease deeds. Rent of the entire premises was agreed to be Rs. 6,000. 00 p. m. Accordingly, the suit property was let-out in two parts and the lease deed in respect of front unit was executed and registered showing the rent of Rs. 4,200. 00 p. m. and second lease deed for the rear unit was executed and registered showing rent of Rs. 1,800. 00 p. m. It may be mentioned here that one Mr. Netar S. Rana who was working as Executive Director with the appellant company at that time negotiated the deal on behalf of the appellant. After the agreement was reached in between the parties in July, 1978, and before it was formalised by registered agreement dated 1/08/1978, Mr. Netar S. Rana wrote letter dated 24/07/1978 on behalf of the appellant to deceased Krishna Prasada. This letter reads as under:
"lam very happy that finally we have come to a stage where we have been able to draw an agreement for the lease for both the units of your house at 2-A Road, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. I wish to give you solemn assurance on my behalf and that of the company that at the end of the tenancy period you will get vacant possession of the entire premises. You may rest assured that there will be no default. I am going to construct my own bungalow which should be ready before the lease period of this agreement expires and I shall be moving into it. "
( 4 ) IT may be also mentioned at this stage that alongwith the registered Lease Agreement, the aforesaid letter dated 24/07/1978 (Ex. DW l/x-4) was also registered. Thereafter, late Shri Krishna Prasada wrote letter dated 28/07/1978 to Shri Netar S. Rana
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
