Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
A.K. Pathak, J.
Raj Khanna (Mrs.) - Appellant
Versus
Mira Chawla (Smt.) & Ors. - Respondent
CS(OS) 593/2004
Decided On : 28-05-2014
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 6A, 2(l)(iii), 50 - Indian Easement Act, 1882 - Section 60 - Limitation - Possession - Cause of action - Admissibility of - Suit is not for eviction of a tenant - Suit of plaintiff is that after the notice of termination B.N. became statutory tenant - After his death P. Khanna became statutory tenant - P.K died and thereafter defendant no.2 was left with no right to continue to hold over the possession of the suit premises - Defendant no. 2 was supposed to remove the belongings which she failed to do - Defendant No. kept the premises locked unauthorizedly - Defendants were closely related to plaintiff - P. Khanna being statutory tenant was entitled to protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act - No such suit against her could have been filed except the eviction petition - It is only after her death cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff to file the suit for possession - Suit has been filed within 12 years from the date of cause of action and is within time.
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 6A, 2(l)(iii), 50 - Indian Easement Act, 1882 - Section 60 - Possession - Mesne profit - Damages - Documentary evidence - Plaintiff has not led any documentary evidence on this issue - Plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence to prove the rent prevalent in the area in respect of similarly situated premises - In absence of evidence it is not possible to determine exact mesne profit to which plaintiff would be entitled to - Property is located in posh locality with measuring area 2000 sq. yards could easily fetch Rs. 60,000/- per month - No documentary evidence is available on record to assess the damage for the subsequent period - Premises is situated in a posh locality - It could have fetched a monthly rent of Rs. 15,000/- - Plaintiff would be entitled to three years period to filing of the suit till possession of the suit property is handed over by the defendant no.2 to the plaintiff - Compromise decree has been passed against the defendant no.3 - A decree of possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.2 in respect of the property - Defendant no.2 shall also pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to the plaintiff.
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 6A, 2(l)(iii), 50 - Indian Easements Act, 1882 - Section 60 - Possession - Tenant - Tenancy right - B.N. Khanna was inducted in the suit property as a tenant and has not any other independent right - Suit property was let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose - Upon service of notice of termination contractual tenancy came to an end - Tenant continued to enjoy protection, as available to a tenant paying less than Rs. 3,500/- as rent under the Act - Tenant status was rendered to be that of statutory tenant from a contractual tenant - In case of a statutory tenant, if the tenant leaves behind a widow, she alone will get a right to inherit the statutory tenancy - This right does not pass on to any other heir or legal representative of the deceased-tenant - P.K was living with B.N. at the time of his death - Defendants were married and were not residing with B.N. - This right does not pass on to any other heir or legal representative of the deceased-tenant - After the death of P.K status of defendant no.2 was rendered to be that of an unauthorized occupant in the suit premises - Plea of suit being barred under Section 50 of the Act cannot be entertained - For the foregoing reasons, Issue Nos. 1 to 5 and 9 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against.
1. Plaintiff has filed this suit for possession and damages against the defendants in respect of property bearing No. 3, Sri Ram Road, Civil Lines, Delhi - 110054 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the suit property); more particularly shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are cousins of plaintiff’s husband Late Shri Pratap Chand Khanna.
2. Plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that the suit property was originally belonged to maternal grandfather of her husband, namely, Shri Sriram Tandon, who bequeathed the same in favour of her husband-Shri Pratap Chand Khanna by way of a registered Will dated 18th March, 1930. The suit property was put into the stock of Joint Hindu Family by Late Shri Pratap Chand Khanna known as P.C. Khanna and Sons, which comprised of Late Shri Pratap Chand Khanna, plaintiff and their son. On 4th February, 1971, a partition took place amongst the members of Joint Hindu Family and suit property fell in the share of plaintiff and she became exclusive owner thereof. Her name was duly recorded in the records of Municipal Corporation in the year 1978. Even prior to the said arrangement plaintiff’s husband had let out the suit property to his parental uncle, namely, Shri B.N. Khanna at monthly rent of Rs. 104.50 for residential purposes only sometime in the year 1948. After the partition of the Joint Hindu Family Shri B.N. Khanna was informed about this fact and was requested to pay rent to plaintiff with effect from February, 1971. Accordingly, Late Shri B.N. Khanna started paying rent of the suit property to plaintiff with effect from February, 1971 and acknowledged her as his landlord. Tenancy was terminated by the plaintiff, vide notice dated 13th February, 1981, with effect from 31st March, 1981.
3. Shri B.N. Khanna expired in the year 1992. He was survived by his wife Smt. Prakashvati Khanna and three daughters, that is, defendants. At the time of his death only Smt. Prakashvati Khanna was living with him in the suit property as defendants had already been married and residing in their respective maternal home(s). They were not living in the suit property at the time of death of Shri B.N. Khanna. After death of Shri B.N. Khanna his wife Smt. Prakashvati Khanna continued to occupy the suit property being spouse of Late Shri B.N. Khanna and became statutory tenant. Vide notice dated 20th July, 1993 Smt. Prakashvati was requested to increase the rent of suit property by 10% under Section 6(A) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act, for short). With effect from 1st September, 1993 rent of the suit property was increased to Rs. 330/- per month. Thereafter, again rent was increased to Rs. 363/- per month in the year 1996. Smt. Prakashvati Khanna passed away on 7th June, 1997 and upon her death tenancy automatically came to an end. Defendants did not inherit the tenancy under Section 2(1)(iii) of the Act. After the death of Smt. Prakashvati Khanna defendants did not remove her personal belongings. Suit property was lying locked since the year 1997. After the death of Smt. Prakashvati Khanna plaintiff neither demanded nor accepted any rent from the defendants. Since plaintiff and defendants were closely related they were verbally requested by the plaintiff to remove the belongings of their parents. Defendants sought some time to do so. Defendant No. 1, vide letter dated 2nd February, 2000, categorically admitted that she did not have any claim over the suit property and plaintiff was free to take over the possession. Defendant No. 3 had also written to plaintiff to the similar effect. Defendant No. 2 also promised to hand over the possession. However, finally possession was not handed over by them, hence the present suit.
4. Plaintiff has alleged that suit property was capable of fetching rent of Rs. 60,000/- per month and defendants were liable to pay damages amounting to Rs. 21,60,000/- for the period 1st June, 2001 to 1st May, 2004. Apart f
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
