The judgment emphasizes that technical objections should not be permitted to defeat substantial justice, and it interprets the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in the context of tenancy termination.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

Caveat No. 259/2011 in RFA No. 179/2011 Counsel for the caveator appears and thus the caveat stands discharged.

C.M. Nos. 6161/2011 and 6162/2011(Exemption) in RFA No. 179/2011 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

RFA No. 179/2011

1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.12.2010 which has decreed the suit of the Respondents/Plaintiffs for possession of the suit premises against the Appellant who was a tenant. The facts of the case are that the premises being flat No. 205 (2nd floor), Arunachal Building, 19, Barakambha Road, New Delhi, was let out to the Appellant/Defendant vide an unregistered lease deed dated 7.7.2003 at a monthly rent of Rs. 23,200/- for a period of three years from 7.7.2003. The tenancy of the Appellant/Defendant was terminated vide notice dated 15.7.2006 and whereafter the suit was filed on 24.7.2007 for possession of the suit premises and for mesne profits.

2. This case has a slightly chequered history inasmuch as earlier the suit for possession was decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 7.5.2010 remanded the case back to the trial Court on the ground that there were no admissions and therefore the suit required trial.

3. The case was thereafter fixed in the trial Court after the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 7.5.2010 and though the Respondents/Plaintiffs led evidence, the Appellant/Defendant did not lead evidence in spite of opportunities given and consequently its right to lead evidence was closed. The impugned has judgment thereafter been passed by the trial Court.

4. A reading of the facts of the present case shows that there is no dispute as regards there having existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the rent was more than Rs. 3,500/- per month, taking the premises outside the protection of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Before the trial Court basically two main arguments were raised on behalf of the Appellant/Defendant/tenant. The first argument was based upon Clause 6 of the unregistered lease deed dated 7.7.2003 on a stamp paper of Rs. 100/- which reads as under:

Clause 6 That although the Lease has been created for a period of 3 years yet the monthly rent payable by the Lessees to the Lessors shall stand increased by 20% (Twenty percent only) of the original rent with intervals of each period of three years after the expiry of the initial period of three years.

On the basis of the aforesaid clause, it was contended that the Appellant had a continued right as a perpetual tenant in the premises once rent was increased by 20% every three years. The second argument before the trial Court was that the notice of termination of tenancy dated 15.7.2006 was not validly served and therefore the tenancy was not validly terminated.

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has raised not only the same two arguments which were raised before the trial Court but has also argued a third point that the tenancy was renewed because enhanced rent was received by the Respondents after the termination of the tenancy.

6. So far as the argument based upon Clause 6 of the lease deed is concerned, in my opinion, the argument is without substance as the lease document relied upon is an unregistered lease deed and which cannot create a lease for a fixed period unless the lease deed was duly registered. Unless and until a lease for fresh periods is in fact duly entered into in terms of Clause 6 of the lease deed dated 7.7.2003, the Appellant would remain a tenant only from month to month. In law, either there is a tenancy for a specific period in terms of a duly registered lease deed, and in which case the tenant would have protection for the period of lease or if there is no registered lease deed for the leased premises then the tenancy w