Back
High Court Of Delhi
S.L.ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
KARNATAKA HANDLOOM DEV - Respondent
Decided On : 03/11/1996
ORDER 12 RULE 6 CPC - EVICTION SUIT - LEASE AGREEMENT - ADMISSIONS - JURISDICTION - DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - SECTION 3 (C) - ULTRA VIRES - MESNE PROFITS - SUMMARY JUDGMENT: Plaintiff's application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for summary judgment in an eviction suit was allowed. Defendant admitted entering into possession of the premises under a lease agreement dated 7.11.1986 for three years, renewable for a further three years at the option of both parties. Defendant claimed an understanding that the lease would be renewed as a matter of course and that the high rent was agreed upon because of the location and implied extension of the lease period. The Court held that the defendant could not contradict the terms of the lease agreement under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act. The Court also held that the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 3 (c), did not apply as the monthly rent exceeded Rs. 3,500. The Court granted a decree for eviction with possession to be handed over on 17.6.1996 and ordered an enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC for determining mesne profits.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed an eviction suit against the defendant, a showroom of an undertaking of the Government of Karnataka, alleging that the defendant entered into possession of the premises under a lease agreement dated 7.11.1986 for three years, renewable for a further three years at the option of both parties. The defendant refused to vacate the premises after the expiry of the lease term. The defendant contended that there was an understanding that the lease would be renewed as a matter of course and that the high rent was agreed upon because of the location and implied extension of the lease period. The defendant also claimed that the provisions of Section 3 (c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, were ultra vires and that the tenancy was governed by the provisions of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the defendant's admissions of entering into possession of the premises under the lease agreement and the terms of the lease agreement entitled the plaintiff to a decree for eviction. The Court also held that the defendant could not contradict the terms of the lease agreement under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act. The Court further held that the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 3 (c), did not apply as the monthly rent exceeded Rs. 3,500.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for eviction based on the defendant's admissions and the terms of the lease agreement? 2. Whether the defendant could contradict the terms of the lease agreement under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act? 3. Whether the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 3 (c), applied to the tenancy in question?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the defendant's admissions of entering into possession of the premises under the lease agreement and the terms of the lease agreement entitled the plaintiff to a decree for eviction. The Court relied on the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, which allows the Court to pass a judgment based on admissions of fact made by a party. 2. The Court held that the defendant could not contradict the terms of the lease agreement under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act. The Court noted that the defendant was attempting to vary and contradict the terms of the lease deed, which could only be done by executing a new document or fresh lease deed. 3. The Court held that the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 3 (c), did not apply to the tenancy in question as the monthly rent exceeded Rs. 3,500.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the plaintiff's application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and granted a decree for eviction with possession to be handed over on 17.6.1996. The Court also ordered an enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC for determining mesne profits.
( 1 ) THIS is anapplication filed by the plaintiff M/s. S. L. Associate Pvt. Ltd. under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
( 2 ) SUIT No. 3835/90 is filed by applicant plaintiff to get a decree of eviction and future mean profits. Plaintiff has come before the Court with a case that defendant Kamataka Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. came in possession of their premises described in para I of the plaint as per the terms of the lease agreement dated 7. 11. 86. After taking the possession of the premises on 8. 11. 86 they failed to vacate the possession of the same after the efflux of time covered by the said agreertnent. As per the said agreement, they were to vacate the premises on 31. 10. 89. No doubt, the agreement deed contain a clause that by mutual agreement between both the parties the period of lease could be extended further for period of three years bygiving rise in the rent by 10 per cent but the defendant had never moved for extending the said lease beyond three years and the managing director of the plaintiff-company had served a notice on them on 17. 10. 89 asking them to vacate the premises on 31. 10. 89. Thereafter two notices were served respectively on 11. 1. 90 and 10. 11. 90 calling upon the defendant to vacate the premises but as the defendant did not vacate the same, the suit was filed in the Court on 18. 12. 90.
( 3 ) DEFENDANT has contested the claim of the plaintiff by filing written statement which is subsequently amended with the leave of the Court. In the said written statement, it has been alleged by the defendant that though the agreement of lease between the parties was mentioning that with the option of both the parties, the lease was to be extended only for three years, after the agreed period there was an understanding between the parties that the defendant may continue as tenant for three more years after the period of lease. There was no question of any agreement or option to be mutually exercised by both the plaintiff and defendant to continue the lease beyond the period mentioned in the lease deed. It is further contended by the defendant that as it was initially agreed by the plaintiff for not giving effect to the terms of the agreement after the expiry of three years, the defendant had agreed to pay the hight rent of Rs. 15,000. 00 per month when the similar premises in the neighbourhood were available for a monthly rent of Rs. l,500. 00 to Rs. 2,000. 00. It is also further contended that because of the said understanding given by the plaintiff they had paid Rs. 1,80,000. 00 by way of advance rent for one year and had also deposited a security of Rs. 6,50,000. 00 with the plaintiff. They contended that the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant is that of landlord and tenant is governed by the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and the provisions of Section 3 (c) of Delhi Rent Control Act are ultra vires and that the same are not binding against the defendant. They thus contended that the plaintiff s suit is not tenable in law and the same deserves to be dismissed.
( 4 ) BY this IA 10919/92, it is contended by the plaintiff that the defendant has admitted that the plaintiff s claim that the defendant came in possession of the property on account of the lease agreement dated 7. 11. 86. As per the terms of the said agreement the defendant was liable to vacate the premises after a period of three years on 31. 10. 89. The defendant was entitled to continue for further period of only three years only if there was mutual agreement between the plaintiff and defendant. And beyond that period they were not entitled to continue in possession of the same. It is contended by the plaintiff in this application that even as per the claim made by the defendant in the written statement, the defendant was to remain in possession of the property as per the agreement of lease for further period of three years. This period comes to an end on 31. 10. 92. That date is already over during th
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
