The court clarified the application of Section 106 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in determining the duration and termination of leases for immovable property, emphasizing the requirement of written contracts or local laws for leases exceeding one year and the notice periods for termination of leases.

S.P. Garg, J.

1. The appellant-Lord Chloro Alkali Limited, formerly known as Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Limited, has filed the present intra-Court appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30th July, 2010 in CS(OS) No. 131/2005 (original suit No. CS(OS) 344/1998) for possession of property bearing No. 18, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi in favour of the respondents, the original plaintiffs, namely, Mohinder Pal Singh Khurana and Khushbir Singh Baweja, now represented by his legal heirs-Harcharan Kaur, Harshbir Kaur Rana, Gulbir Singh Baweja and Darshbir Kaur Uppal. The same judgment/decree dismisses two other suits; CS(OS) No. 594/1998 for recovery of mesne profits etc. and Suit No. 206/2002 for mandatory injunction etc., which were preferred by Mohinder Pal Singh Khurana and Khushbir Singh Baweja. The respondents have accepted the judgment and decree of the Single Judge dismissing their suits Nos. 594/1998 and 206/2002. We are, therefore, not concerned and not examining the said aspects.

2. The undisputed facts are that Mohinder Pal Singh Khurana, respondent No.1 and Khushbir Singh Baweja, now represented by his legal heirs (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Nos. 2 to 5) acquired leasehold rights from Delhi Development Authority on a plot of land and constructed a commercial building thereon. The said property is given municipal No. 18, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, Delhi. By a registered lease deed dated 14th December, 1981 (Exhibit PW-1/2) an area of 7647.12 square feet was rented out to three companies, namely, the appellant (5000 square feet), Modi Industries Limited (2000 square feet) and Modi Carpets Limited (647 square feet). The demarcation of the area, i.e., 5000 square feet apportioned to the appellant, 2000 square feet apportioned to Modi Industries Limited and 647 square feet apportioned to Modi Carpets Limited was not specifically made in the site plan or in the lease deed. The rent specified in the lease was Rs.3/-per square feet payable by 7th day of each calendar month. The relevant clauses of the lease deed about which there are disputes and interpretation is required are reproduced and discussed below. It is, however, not disputed that the respondents had constructed the commercial building, on the land, consisting of 7647.12 square feet from their own resources.

3. It is also an undisputed position that the respondents constructed a mezzanine floor of 1845 square feet sometimes after the lease deed dated 14th December, 1981 was executed. By the supplementary lease deed (Exhibit PW-1/4) dated 19th September, 1985, the mezzanine floor was rented out to the appellant at Rs.6/- per square feet per month. Modi Industries Limited and Modi Carpets Limited were not parties or tenants under the supplementary lease deed.

4. The respondents through their advocate, before filing the suit, had sent two legal notices dated 29th November, 1997 (Ex.PW1/5) and 21st January, 1998 (Ex.PW-1/11) determining the lease. The notices were sent by registered post. No reply to the said notices was received.

5. The suit for possession was filed on 18th February, 1998. At that time, the total rent being paid for the entire premises to the respondents was Rs.49,570/- per month. The break-up of this is not available, but probably it represents rent at the rate of Rs.3.70 per square feet for 7647.12 square feet, which was originally let out by the respondents to the three companies, including the appellant vide lease deed dated 14th December, 1981 (Exhibit PW-1/2) and Rs.6/-per square feet for 1845 square feet of the mezzanine area, which was rented out to the appellant herein vide supplementary lease deed (Exhibit PW-1/4). Modi Industries Ltd. and Modi Carpets Ltd. were defendants to the said suit but they did not enter appearance despite service and were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 6th April, 2000.

6. The suit has been decreed after protracted trial and adjudication vide impugned judgm