Back
High Court Of Delhi
CHANDER KANTA SINGHAL - Appellant
Versus
KAPADIA EXPORTS - Respondent
Decided On : 10/11/1996
Tenancy Termination - Delhi Rent Control Act - Section 50 - The Trial Court found that the plaintiffs' suits were not barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The appeals court did not discuss this provision in its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed two separate suits for possession and mesne profits for use and occupation of a property. The defendant's tenancies were terminated by quit notices, but the defendant did not vacate the property. The Trial Court found that the plaintiffs' suits were not barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and that the alleged payment by the defendant did not amount to waiver of the quit notice. However, the Trial Court also found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the tenancies had been validly terminated. The Trial Court dismissed both suits. The plaintiffs appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The appeals were filed on the grounds that the Trial Court placed the burden of proof on the plaintiffs regarding the service of quit notices, and that the Trial Court wrongly held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their authorization of the Advocate who issued the quit notices. The defendant/respondent supported the Trial Court's decision. The main issue for decision was whether there was a valid notice terminating the defendant's tenancy. The Trial Court held that the quit notice was not validly served and that the plaintiffs failed to prove their authorization of the Advocate. The appeals court disagreed with the Trial Court's reasoning and found that the quit notice was validly served and that the plaintiffs' authorization of the Advocate was proven. The appeals court held that the defendant's tenancies were validly terminated and allowed the appeals, decreeing the plaintiffs' suits with costs throughout.
Ratio Decidendi: The quit notice was validly served and the plaintiffs' authorization of the Advocate was proven. The defendant's tenancies were validly terminated.
Result: The appeals were allowed, the judgments and decrees appealed against were set aside, and the plaintiffs' suits were decreed with costs throughout. The defendant was ordered to deliver vacant possession of the property and to pay mesne profits to the plaintiffs.
( 1 ) THE plaintiffs who filed two separate suits on 1. 2. 90 for possession and mesne profits for use and occupation in respect of ground floor, 1st and 2nd floors of the property bearing No. 94, Malcha Marg. Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit accommodation ) are the appellants. Ground floor of the said building, subject matter of RFA No. 357/95, was let out to the defendant firm at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000. 00 and first and 2nd floor whereof, subject matter of RFA No. 359/95, was let out to the defendant at a monthly rentof Rs. 4,000. 00. By meansoftwonotices dated 2. 11. 89, thedefendant s tenancies were terminated but despite service of the said notices, the defendant did not vacate the suit accommodation. The suits were resisted on the grounds that: (a) the plaintiffs arc not the owners of the suit accommodation and as such they had no right to serve quit notice dated 2. 11. 89; (b) the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs had waived the quit notice dated 2. 11. 89 by accepting rent for the period from 1. 1. 90 to 30. 4. 90 amounting to Rs. 16,000. 00, and (e) the suit is barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
( 2 ) THE Trial Court framed as many as five issues and after examining one witness on the side of the plaintiffs, and two witnesses on the side of the defendant, it found that each portion of the suit accommodation was let out to the defendant by the plaintiffs at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000. 00 and as such the plaintiffs suit is not barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act in view of the judgment in D. C. Bhatia v. Union of India, J. T. 1994 (7) S. C. 114.
( 3 ) IT has also been found that the alleged payment of Rs. 16,000. 00 by the defendant to the plaintiffs does not amount to waiver of the quit notice dated 2. 11. 89.
( 4 ) THE Trial Court has found that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the defendant s tenancies had been validly terminated by the quit notices dated 2. 1. 89.
( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the Trial Court dismissed both the suits.
( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment of the Trial Court, the present appeals have been filed by the plaintiffs.
( 7 ) THIS common judgment shall govern the disposal of R. F. A. No. 359 /95 also as both these appeals raise a common question of facts and law.
( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Trial Court went wrong in placing the onus of proof regarding service of the quit notices dated 2. 11. 89, on the plaintiffs when the defendant had impliedly admitted service of quit notices in the written statements and no issue was framed by the learned Trial Court concerning that. He also submitted that the learned Trial Court took an erroneous view in holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they had authorised Mr. S. K. Mahajan, Advocate to issue the quit notices on the defendant. According to the learned Counsel, the notices of ejectment could not be held to be invalid because the same were served by an Advocate acting under instructions from his client, and for the reason that such an Advocate had not been examined to prove the giving of instructions. He further contended that the learned Trial Court also went wrong in holding that in the absence of the plaintiffs themselves entering the witness box and Shri V. K. Mittal (Public Witness 1) having failed to prove his authority to represent the plaintiffs as their attorney, the termination of the defendant s tenancies does not stand established.
( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the defendant/respondent strongly supported the impugned judgments. We have considered the rival submissions.
( 10 ) IN the instant case, the main issue for decision was whether there was a valid notice terminating the defendant s tenancy. On this point, the learned trial Judge had framed Issue No. 3 which reads as follows: Whether the tenancy of the defendant has been validly terminated before the filing of t
AI
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
