The main legal point established in the judgment is that acceptance of rent after the termination of tenancy does not create a fresh tenancy, and frivolous defenses in tenancy disputes can lead to imposition of penal costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. I must begin this judgment with a preface. Certain tenants, in this country, consider it an inherent right not to vacate the premises even after either expiry of tenancy period by efflux of time or after their tenancy is terminated by means of a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. All such tenants, including the present appellant-bank, feel that they ought to vacate the tenanted premises only when the Courts pass a decree for possession against them. Considering the facts of the case, it is high time that a strict message is sent to those tenants who illegally continue to occupy the tenanted premises by raising frivolous defences only and only to continue in possession of the tenanted premises. Such incorrigible tenants should be appropriately burdened with penal costs, and which aspect of costs, I will deal with later noting the recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Ramrameshwari Devi and Others v. Nirmala Devi and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 249 in which it has been held that it is high time that actual and realistic costs be imposed in order to pre-empt and prevent dishonesty in litigation.

2. With this preface, let me turn to the present case. There are three requirements for decreeing a suit for possession, which is filed by a landlord against a tenant in Delhi. These requirements are: firstly, the existence of a relationship of a landlord and tenant, secondly rent being more than Rs. 3,500/- per month thereby taking the premises outside the protection of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and thirdly that the monthly tenancy is terminated by means of a legal notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as the tenancy of a fixed period has expired by efflux of time.

3. All the aforesaid three aspects are not disputed by the appellant/tenant/defendant. Last paid rent is ` 55,030/- per month after deduction of TDS. The only dispute which is raised is that after the tenancy period expired by efflux of time, the respondents/landlords had accepted the rent and therefore the tenancy relation was created afresh by virtue of provision of Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

4. In my opinion, there cannot be a more frivolous, vexatious and malafide defence than the one raised by the appellant/tenant inasmuch as the respondents/landlords in this case even before the period of tenancy expired by efflux of time wrote their letter dated 28.12.2010 asking the appellant/defendant to vacate the property on the expiry of the tenancy period. Obviously, the appellant-bank, which has a lot of monetary resources however deemed it fit not to vacate the premises. The landlords thereafter sent a legal notice dated 4.2.2011 terminating the tenancy. Once again, the appellant gargantuan organization failed to comply with the notice and failed to vacate. Since the appellant-bank has the account of respondents/landlords in its branch, it started depositing rent in the said account and claimed that by acceptance of such amount deposited, a fresh tenancy came into existence. However, this aspect is not only factually incorrect so far as the conclusion of creation of fresh tenancy is concerned but legally too the same is misconceived. Factually, the stand of creation of fresh tenancy is wrong because the landlords when they came to know of the surreptitious and unilateral deposit of rent in their bank account, they wrote their letter dated 12.7.2011 that the rent is being deposited without any instructions on their behalf and therefore the deposit will be taken without prejudice to their rights. Legally the stand of the appellant is incorrect because the Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Sarup Singh Gupta v. S. Jagdish Singh & Ors., 2006 (4) SCC 205 has categorically clarified this position and said that any amount received after the termination of tenancy can surely be taken as charges towards use and occupation because after all the tenant has