Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2078
High Court of Delhi
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
Krishna Kumari
Versus
Sunil Kumar Goel & Another
I.A. No. 21109 of 2013 In CS (OS) No. 560 of 2012
Decided On : 09-09-2014
For the Plaintiff :Kajal Chandra, With Swati Sinha, Prerna Chopra & Vandana Khurana, Advocates.
For the Defendants :Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with Manish Gandhi, M.K. Singh, Ravi Kumar, Advocates.
The judgment under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is not applicable when serious questions of law need to be determined.
Headnote:
possession - lease deed, termination, legal notice - [Order 12 Rule 6, Section 151 CPC, Transfer of Property Act] - The court discussed the lease deed, termination, legal notice, and the application of Order 12 Rule 6 and Section 151 CPC in deciding the possession case.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for possession, mesne profits, and permanent injunction against the defendants for the leased portion of a property. The defendants were accused of breaching the lease terms and were asked to vacate the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants denied the breaches and exercised their option for renewal, leading to a pending suit for specific performance and declaration. The court dismissed the application for possession, stating that the disputed facts required a trial.
Issues: The issues revolved around the lease termination, breaches, and the defendants' denial, leading to a pending suit for specific performance and declaration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that disputed facts require a trial and that a judgment under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is not appropriate when serious questions of law need to be determined.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for possession, stating that the disputed facts required a trial.
Manmohan Singh, J.
1. By this order I propose to decide application being I.A. No. 21109/ 2013 under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff who has filed the suit for possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the leased portion in the property bearing No. 32, F.I.E., Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi – 110092 (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”).
2. The parties entered into a Lease Deed dated 24th October, 2008 in respect of the basement, ground floor and part of first floor of the suit property by virtue of which the defendants have been in possession, occupation and control thereof. The Lease Deed was executed for a period of three years for a monthly rent of Rs.1,47,000/-. The defendants have been using the leased portion of the suit property for services of two wheelers. The front portion alongwith toilet and complete second floor has been stated to be in possession of the plaintiff.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that ever since the inception of the lease, the defendant has been using the leased portion of the suit property contrary to the terms of the lease deed. Defendants have been defaulting in making payments towards rent and on number of occasions their cheques towards rent have bounced. It is stated that defendants have trespassed into the portions in possession of the plaintiff and without seeking consent or permission of the plaintiff the defendants have installed a generator set at the 2nd floor of the suit property. The defendants and their workers use the toilet near the office room at the first floor without the permission of the plaintiff. In the front portion of the first floor, the defendants have installed two fibre sheet cabins for denting and painting of scooter parts and other activities thus disturbing plaintiff’s work. The defendants, against the terms of the lease deed are storing highly inflammable material such as mobile oil, diesel etc. in bulk quantity in barrels/containers which is unsafe for building as well as its inhabitants. The plaintiff has informed defendants about the disturbances and interferences caused by them but defendants did not stop.
4. Vide legal notice 2nd June, 2011, the plaintiff terminated the lease of the defendants giving them two months notice. Defendants in response, sent a reply dated 17th June, 2011 refuting the contentions made by the plaintiff and seeking renewal/extension of further period of six years. However it is stated by the plaintiff that in terms of clause 1.1 of the lease deed, the lease stood expired by efflux of time on 31st October, 2011. The said clause reads as under:
“(i) the lease duration shall be for an initial period of 3 years and total period of 9 years beginning on the effective dated i.e., 01.11.2008.
(ii) One year will be the lock-in period from both the parties;
(iii) after the expiry of one year from the effective date, both parties shall have an option to terminate the Lease by giving two months notice in advance;
(iv) after the expiry of the first 3 years of the Lease deed, fresh Lease deed will be renewed for a further period of 3 years.”
5. It is the case of the plaintiff that since the lease has not been renewed or extended, the defendants reside in the suit property as illegal occupants and are liable to handover peaceful and vacant physical possession of the leased portion of the suit property to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff filed the suit for possession against the defendants.
6. It is stated by the plaintiff that the defendants in their pleadings including in the various paras of the written statement have admitted the execution of the registered lease deed dated 24th October, 2008, the landlord-tenant relationship and also that the possession of the leased portion of the suit property is still in their occupation. Despite the legal notice being duly served on the defendants, they have failed to comply with the said notice. As th
