Back
2011 Supreme(Del) 456
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
Appellants: S.N. Sheopuri
Vs.
Respondent: Fab India Overseas P. Ltd.
CS (OS) 246/2009
Decided On: 04.07.2011
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Rajiv Sharma and Sanjeev Sindhwani, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: R.K. Mehta, Virender Mehta, Manju Mehta and Saroj, Advs.
Headnote:
Suit for possession and mesne profits - Defendant inducted as tenant in 1970's - Rent increased from time to time - Notice of termination of tenancy served on Defendant - Defendant did not hand over vacant possession - Suit filed - Defendant claimed tenancy was protected under Delhi Rent Control Act - Court held that premises were not covered under the Act - Defendant became co-owner of the suit property in equal shares with the Plaintiff - Plaintiff sought partition - Court held that Plaintiff was entitled to rendition of accounts in terms of Order 20 Rule 12 Code of Civil Procedure from the Defendant for the period October 21, 2005 up to the date of handing over the possession of Plaintiff's share of the property to her.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs claimed to be owners of premises bearing No. 14, N-Block Market, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110 048. The suit alleges that the Defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises sometime in the 1970's. From time to time the rent was increased, the last rent being ₹ 20,000/- per month. No lease deed was executed for letting out the suit premises; the arrangement was a monthly tenancy, starting from the first day of each English calendar month and expiring on the last day. By a registered post notice dated 10th May, 1995 sent on behalf of the Plaintiffs, the tenancy was terminated with effect from the expiry of mid night of 30th June, 1995. The notice stated that if the Defendant considered the tenancy month to be different (from the one stated in it), then the tenancy would stand terminated in June, 1995, on the expiry of the day, which according to it was the last day of the tenancy month. Defendant responded to the notice contending that its tenancy was protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the premises were not covered under the Delhi Rent Control Act and the Defendant became a co-owner of the suit property in equal shares with the Plaintiff. The court further held that the Plaintiff was entitled to rendition of accounts in terms of Order 20 Rule 12 Code of Civil Procedure from the Defendant for the period October 21, 2005 up to the date of handing over the possession of Plaintiff's share of the property to her.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit premises were covered under the Delhi Rent Control Act? 2. Whether the Defendant became a co-owner of the suit property in equal shares with the Plaintiff? 3. Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to rendition of accounts in terms of Order 20 Rule 12 Code of Civil Procedure from the Defendant for the period October 21, 2005 up to the date of handing over the possession of Plaintiff's share of the property to her?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the premises were not covered under the Delhi Rent Control Act as the monthly rent was more than ₹ 3500/-. The court further held that the Defendant became a co-owner of the suit property in equal shares with the Plaintiff as the sale deed executed in favor of the Defendant conveyed only a fractional (50%) share and not the entire interest in the suit property. The court also held that the Plaintiff was entitled to rendition of accounts in terms of Order 20 Rule 12 Code of Civil Procedure from the Defendant for the period October 21, 2005 up to the date of handing over the possession of Plaintiff's share of the property to her as the Defendant was in possession of the suit property.
Final Decision: Suit decreed in favor of the Plaintiff.
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. This suit claimed a decree for possession and mesne profits. The Plaintiffs, claimed to be owners of premises bearing No. 14, N-Block Market, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110 048 ("the suit premises"), located on a 197 sq. yards plot consisting of a basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor, with a total covered area of approximately 4,200 sq. feet. The suit alleges that the Defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises sometime in the 1970's. From time to time the rent was increased, the last rent being ` 20,000/- per month. No lease deed was executed for letting out the suit premises; the arrangement was a monthly tenancy, starting from the first day of each English calendar month and expiring on the last day.
2. The suit alleges that by a registered post notice dated 10May, 1995 sent on behalf of the th Plaintiffs, the tenancy was terminated with effect from the expiry of mid night of 30June, 1995. The notice stated that if the Defendant considered the tenancy month to be different (from the one stated in it), then the tenancy would stand terminated in June, 1995, on the expiry of the day, which according to it was the last day of the tenancy month. By a letter dated 31.05.1995 the Defendant responded to the notice contending that its tenancy was protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Plaintiff's ownership of the premises, extent of tenancy premises, the monthly rent and the month to month nature of the tenancy was not denied.
3. The suit alleges that despite the notice, the Defendant did not hand over vacant and physical possession; the rent of the suit premises is more that ` 3,500/- per month. Therefore, the Delhi Rent Control Act did not apply to the premises. It was alleged that on termination of the tenancy the Defendant had no right, title or interest in the suit premises and as such the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the possession of the premises, as also mesne profits on account of alleged wrongful, unauthorized and illegal use and occupation of the suit premises. It is alleged that the rent of the premises was paid by the Defendant at the rate of ` 20,000/- per month till 30th April, 1995. The Defendant used to remit rent by way of a cheque for ` 16,000/- after deducting `4,000/- as TDS. However, for the month of May, 1995 the Defendant sent a cheque for ` 19,200/- along with a note to the effect that it represented a 10% increase. The Plaintiffs had not asked for or assented to an increase of rent nor was there any agreement providing for increase of rent. The suit alleges that sending of a cheque for a higher amount was an attempt by the Defendant to defeat the notice of termination. Since the said cheque was not for the correct amount it was not en-cashed by the Plaintiffs. The rent for the months of May and June, 1995 is in arrears. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for ` 40,000/- by way of arrears of rent. The Plaintiff seeks mesne profits for the period 01.07.1995 to 31.08.1995 at ` 1,00,000/- per month which is the prevailing rate in the area at present and future mesne profits at the rate prevailing in the area at the time of disposal of the suit. The Plaintiffs are further entitled to interest on the arrears of rent and mesne profits @18% per annum at monthly rates.
4. It is alleged that earlier the Defendant was known as Fab India Overseas Pvt. Ltd. However, the Defendant's recent correspondence bears the stamp of "Fab India Overseas Ltd." even though its letterheads continue to bear the name "Fab India Overseas Pvt. Ltd." The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant has become a deemed Public Limited Company.
5. During the pendency of the suit, the original Plaintiff Shri S.N. Sheopuri died on 06.01.1999. His share in the suit property devolved upon his elder daughter Mrs. Lakshmi Dar who was brought on record in the proceedings. Mrs. Lakshmi Dar died on 04.09.2002; consequently, her son and daughter Mr. Dhruv Dar and Mrs. Preet
