Back
High Court Of Delhi
VINOD KHANNA - Appellant
Versus
BAKSHI SACHDEV (DECEASED) - Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL 9 of 1994
Decided On : 04/20/1995
LANDLORD-TENANT - TERMINATION OF TENANCY - NOTICE - VALIDITY - SERVICE - PRESUMPTION - JUDICIAL NOTICE - RENT - INCREASE - COMPENSATION - LIABILITY - EVIDENCE - CLOSING - JUSTIFICATION - ORDER 17 RULE 2 CPC - EXPLANATION - APPLICABILITY - SECTION 151 CPC - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits, damages, and injunction relating to property No. 5, Golf Links, New Delhi. The defendants were the tenants of the property. The plaintiffs terminated the tenancy by notice dated 12.12.1988. The defendants challenged the validity of the notice and the termination of tenancy.
Finding of the Court:
1. The notice terminating the tenancy was duly, properly, and validly served on the defendants. 2. The Trial Court was justified in taking judicial notice of the fact of increase of rents and determining the compensation in respect of the suit premises at Rs. 10,000.00 per month w.e.f. 19.1.1989. 3. The defendants are liable to pay to the plaintiffs such charges levied by L and DO in respect of the suit premises as and when such demand is made by the L and DO. 4. The learned Trial Court was justified in closing the evidence of the defendants and proceedings with the hearing of the suit as was done by him on 17.5.1993.
Issues: 1. Whether the notice terminating the tenancy was duly, properly, and validly served on the defendants? 2. Whether the Trial Court was justified in taking judicial notice of the fact of increase of rents and determining the compensation in respect of the suit premises at Rs. 10,000.00 per month w.e.f. 19.1.1989? 3. Whether the defendants are liable to pay to the plaintiffs such charges levied by L and DO in respect of the suit premises as and when such demand is made by the L and DO? 4. Whether the learned Trial Court was justified in closing the evidence of the defendants and proceedings with the hearing of the suit as was done by him on 17.5.1993?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The presumption of service of notice under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act applies in the present case. The notices were dispatched to the defendants individually at their proper addresses and it can be presumed that the notices have been duly served on the defendants. 2. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact of increase of rents in the premises in and around Delhi. The Trial Court did not commit any illegality in taking judicial notice of the fact of increase of rents and determining the compensation in respect of the suit premises at Rs. 10,000.00 per month w.e.f. 19.1.1989. 3. The defendants are liable to pay to the plaintiffs such charges levied by L and DO in respect of the suit premises as and when such demand is made by the L and DO. However, in the absence of any specific demand in that respect at present, the findings of the Trial Court on Issues Nos. 6 and 7 are set aside. 4. The defendants were given ample opportunities to examine their witnesses and lead evidence. However, they failed to do so and dilly-dallied the entire process of hearing of the suit. The Trial Court was justified in closing the evidence of the defendants and proceeding with the hearing of the suit as was done by him on 17.5.1993.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed with costs. The findings and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge Court are upheld except for the finding recorded in Issues Nos. 6 and 7, which is set aside.
Based on the provided legal document, the assessment of rent does not necessarily depend solely on the existence of a formal rental agreement or deed. The court can determine the fair market rent for the premises through judicial notice and evaluation of surrounding circumstances, such as the prevailing rent in the area and the evidence on record.
In the case discussed, the court took judicial notice of the fact that rents in Delhi had been increasing and used this to determine a fair rent amount, despite the lease deed being unregistered and not explicitly specifying the rent. The court emphasized that even in the absence of a registered lease or explicit agreement, rent can be assessed based on evidence, prevailing market conditions, and judicial notice of facts relevant to the property's location and usage.
Therefore, rent can be assessed even without a formal or registered rental agreement, provided there is sufficient evidence or judicial notice to establish a reasonable and fair rent.
( 1 ) THE present appeal by defendants 1,2 and 3 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29. 5. 1993 passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No. 723 /1989 filed by plaintiff/respondent No. 2 and the predecessor- in-interest of respondents No. 1 (a) and 1 (b) for recovery of possession, mesne profits, damages and injunction relating to property No. 5, Golf Links, New Delhi.
( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint, in brief, is that the property was let out to M/s. Dynamic Sales Service International Pvt. Ltd. w. e. f. 19. 6. 1974 on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,000. 00. The written lease agreement in this connection is dated 21. 6. 1974 but the same was not registered. It is pleaded that after a few months the lease was transferred in favour of defendant No. 1 - namely M/s. Concord International Pvt. Ltd. in pursuance of which the defendant No. 1 became the sole tenant on the same terms and conditions. The defendant No. 2 alongwith his family members practically own all the shares of defendant No. 1, and accordingly for all practical purposes the defendant No. 1 is a company belonging to defendant No. 2 and his family, who are also the persons residing in the said house right from the beginning.
( 3 ) THE plaintiff originally impleaded M/s. Dynamic Sales Service International Pvt. Ltd. as defendant No. 4 and Shri Vipin Khanna as defendant No. 5. However, subsequently on the basis of the representation on behalf of defendants Nos. 4 and 5 that they do not claim any interest in the suit property the said defendants were given up by the plaintiff. It may also be mentioned herein that the defendant No. 2 and Shri Vipin Khanna who was originally impleaded as defendant No. 5 are real brothers. It is also to be mentioned that earlier the defendant No. 2 was also involved with M/s. Dynamic Sales Service International Pvt. Ltd. and he had in fact executed the lease agreement on behalf of the said company with the plaintiff.
( 4 ) BY notice dated 12. 12. 1988 the plaintiffs terminated the tenancy w. e. f. the last date of the month of tenancy and it is the case of the plaintiffs that inspite of service of notice of termination of tenancy the defendant failed to vacate the premises and hand over vacant, peaceful possession thereof to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in this suit also have claimed compensation for the demands made by the Government on various accounts of breaches of the terms of the lease committed by the defendants and the plaintiffs have also demanded mesne profits at Rs. 10,000. 00 per month w. e. f. 19. 1. 1989 i. e. after termination of the tenancy. The plaintiff has also claimed pendente lite interest @ 10% per annum till realisation.
( 5 ) THE suit was filed on 10. 3. 1989 through the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Nos. 1 (a) and (b) and plaintiff No. 2/ respondent No. 2. The respondents 1 (a) and 1 (b) being the legal representatives of plaintiff No. 1 were brought on record by order dated 25. 1. 1990.
( 6 ) THE defendants Nos. 4 and 5 filed a joint written statement in March, 1990 in which they stated that the tenancy had been transferred in the name of defendant No. 1 and they had no interest in the property in suit.
( 7 ) DEFENDANTS Nos. 1 to 3 who are the present appellants, filed a joint written statement on 6. 9. 1990 i. e. after about 18 months of the institution of the suit. In fact on 17. 8. 1990 their defence was struck off on account of non-filing of the written statement. However, on an appeal filed against the said order the written statement was filed by the aforesaid defendants during the pendency of the aforesaid appeals. The said written statement was allowed to be taken on record. The case of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3/ the present appellants as disclosed from the written statement is that the suit is not maintainable in view of the fact that the notice was invalid in the eyes of law. It was further pleaded that the defendant No. 1, defendant
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
