Devinder Gupta, J.

( 1 ). This regular first appeal by the defendant arises out of judgment and decree passed on 6. 7. 1995 by Shri B. S. Mathur, Additional District Judge, Delhi decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession of premises known as 487/79, Peera Garhi, Delhi as shown in the site plan, Ext. Public Witness 1/1 and for recovery of Rs. 42,350. 00 as arrears of rent w. e. f. 1,8. 1992 to 30. 6. 1993 at the rate of Rs. 3,850. 00 per month, subject to adjustment of the rent, if any paid by defendant-appellant during the pendency of the suit or security paid, if any, and a decree for damages for unauthorised use and occupation from 1. 7. 1993 till delivery of possession at the rate of Rs. 20,000. 00 p. m.

( 2 ). The defendant was let out a portion of the suit premises by Shri Pritpal Singh, the father of the plaintiff at a rental of Rs. l,350. 00 p. m. through lease deed dated 30. 9. 1976. On additional portion being let out, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 2,800. 00 p. m. On the death of Pritpal Singh, the plaintiff became the owner of the property on the basis of Will dated 24. 2. 1981 executed in his favour by Pritpal Singh. It is the admitted case of the parties that through lease agreement Ext. PW 1/2 dated 1. 9. 1982 the plaintiff let out the premises in question to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,500. 00. The agreement says that the lessor grants to the lessee the entire ground floor except one room in the right side of the main entrance, first floor and second floor in the property No. 487/79, Peera Garhi, Paschim Puri, Rohtak Road, Delhi for a period of 11 months at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,500. 00 , for commercial factory purposes and the lessee shall have the option to renew the lease, on the same rent, for a further period of II months, on the same terms and conditions.

( 3 ). On 2. 7. 1992 notice Ext Public Witness 1/3 was served by the plaintiff on the defendant demanding enhancement in rent at the rate of 10% and calling upon the defendant to increase the rent to Rs. 3,850. 00 -p. m. while maintaining that the Delhi Rent Control Act has no application to the premises. According to the defendant enhancement was not agreed upon. The defendant continued to remit rent at the rate of Rs. 3,500. 00 p. m. Cheques were returned by the plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff thereafter sent notice dated 19. 12. 1992 terminating the defendant s tenancy w. e. f. 30. 6. 1993. On failure to vacate, on the basis of notice dated 19. 12. 1992 the suit for eviction was filed;

( 4 ). The defendant contested the suit inter alia on the grounds: that enhancement claimed by the plaintiff was unwarranted and illegal and the same was demanded merely to oust the defendant from the protective umbrella of Delhi Rent Control Act; that even if lease agreement Ext. PW1/2 dated 1. 9. 1982 was unregistered the same, in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act,. can be looked into as regards the mode of determination of tenancy, being a collateral purpose and under the terms of the lease agreement the plaintiff had no right to terminate the lease; that the lease was for commercial factory purposes and the duration thereof will be from year to year and thus under law the plaintiff could have terminated the same only on serving six months notice; the notice Ext. Public Witness 1/9 dated 19. 12. 1992 did not terminate the lease by the end of the period of tenancy.

( 5 ). The trial of the suit proceeded on the following issues:

"1. WHETHER the tenancy of the defendant stands determined by efflux of time and/or by a notice u/s 106 of T. P. Act as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of suit premises? OPP 3. To what amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled as rent/damages mesne profits and at what rate and to what amount? OPP 4. Whether this court has the jurisdiction to try the suit? OPP 5. Whether there is no privity of contract between plaintiff and defendant No. l to pay the r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document