2015 Supreme(Del) 549

High Court of Delhi
J.R. MIDHA, J.
Pradeep Khanna – Appellant
Versus
Renu Khetarpal – Respondent
R.F.A. No. 638 of 2014
Decided On : 10-04-2015

In a suit for recovery of possession, the landlord is required to establish the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the termination of the tenancy. If the relationship of tenant and landlord and termination are admitted by the tenant, the decree for possession cannot be denied on the ground that the tenant claims to have spent money on the renovation.

Headnote:

ORDER XII RULE 6 CPC - SUIT FOR POSSESSION - LANDLORD AND TENANT RELATIONSHIP - TERMINATION OF TENANCY - ADMISSION OF RECEIPT OF TERMINATION NOTICE - DECREE FOR POSSESSION - IMPOSITION OF COSTS.

Fact of the Case:

Appellant challenged the decree for possession of a flat passed against him under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A registered rent agreement was executed between the respondent and the appellant for a period of two years. A separate agreement was executed for user charges of the fittings and fixtures. Both agreements were to run simultaneously and termination of either would automatically terminate the other. The respondent notified the appellant that after the expiry of the two years' period of lease, the lease was orally renewed on a month-to-month basis upon increase of rent. The respondent demanded arrears of rent and hire charges along with interest and terminated the tenancy. The appellant admitted the rent agreement and the agreement of fittings and fixtures, as well as the increase in rent. He claimed that he had paid the rent and hire charges up to March 2012 and had spent Rs. 7 lakh on repair work, which he adjusted against the rent and hire charges. The appellant admitted the receipt of the termination notice but denied the respondent's claim of rent and hire charges. The appellant filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a decree of possession on the ground that the appellant had admitted the receipt of the termination notice. The appellant filed a reply denying the application and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the respondent had no cause of action for filing the suit. The trial court allowed the respondent's application and dismissed the appellant's application. The appellant challenged the order in the instant appeal.

Finding of the Court:

1. The relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted by the appellant in his written statement before the Trial Court. 2. The appellant raised a frivolous objection that the rent agreement placed on record by the respondent was forged. 3. There is no merit in appellant’s objection to the validity of the notice of termination dated 26th October, 2013. 4. The appellant has not filed a counter claim to seek recovery of the expenditure on repairs from the respondent in the suit. 5. The appellant has referred to and relied upon judgments which do not support his case. 6. This case is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Payal Vision (supra), Asha Narang (supra) and by this Court in Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

Issues: 1. Whether the appellant admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant as well as the termination of tenancy by a valid notice? 2. Whether the appellant raised a frivolous objection that the rent agreement placed on record by the respondent was forged? 3. Whether there is any merit in appellant’s objection to the validity of the notice of termination dated 26th October, 2013? 4. Whether the appellant has filed a counter claim to seek recovery of the expenditure on repairs from the respondent in the suit? 5. Whether the appellant has referred to and relied upon judgments which do not support his case?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. In a suit for recovery of possession the landlord is required to establish the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the termination of the tenancy. 2. If the relationship of tenant and landlord and termination are admitted by the tenant, the decree for possession cannot be denied on the ground that the tenant claims to have spent money on the renovation. 3. A suit for ejectment is different from a Title Suit for Possession against a trespasser. The dispute here is generally only on two counts. One, about assent to continuation in the case of lease for a fixed term which had expired by efflux of time, or in the case of a tenancy from month-to-month, about the valid termination thereof. In case the lessee claims a right of renewal under a clause therefore, he must bring a separate suit for specific performance of the renewal clause within the limitation prescribed for such a suit. 4. A notice dispatched to the defendant by registered post is presumed to be served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and a denial of the said notice by the defendant has no value. 5. False claims and defences are serious problems with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever escalating prices of the real estate.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/-. However, considering that the appellant did not have the assistance of a counsel and appears to have been misguided with respect to the correct position of law, the costs imposed be refunded if the appellant deposits the costs within 10 days before the Execution Court along with an undertaking to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the respondent by 31st May, 2015.