The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of fundamental facts and pleadings to invoke the applicability of specific acts, and the court's emphasis on the legality of the notice of termination and the nature of the tenancy.

VIPIN SANGHI, J. (OPEN COURT)

1. The present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned ADJ (W), Tis Hazari, Delhi in RCA No.32/2011 preferred by the appellant/defendant, against the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge-05(W), Tis Hazari in Suit No.682/2010 filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant. The First Appellate Court has dismissed the appellants first appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, thereby decreeing the suit for possession in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.

2. The admitted facts are that the father of the plaintiffs had leased to the defendant and one Sh. Ishwar Singh an open piece of land admeasuring 2 bighas 11 biswas in village Khanpur, New Delhi vide registered lease deed dated 14.01.1950, which expired by flux of time on 11.01.1970. The lease was not renewed thereafter.

3. The case of the plaintiff was that a portion of 300 sq yds out of the aforesaid land was occupied by the defendant even after expiry of the lease agreement and that the defendant had attorned to the plaintiff as landlord after the demise of the parents of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was paying rent @ Rs.86.40 per month, but the rent had not been paid for more than three years ending 13.05.2006. A notice dated 12.04.2006 was served on the defendant terminating the monthly lease, and asking him to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit land admeasuring 300 sq yds by the close of 13.05.2006. However, since the possession was not delivered, the suit was preferred to seek recovery of possession of the suit property along with recovery of the amount of Rs.259.90 being the rent for three years ending 13.05.2006 and Rs.4,000/- towards damages/mesne profits.

4. The defendant/appellant filed his written statement. Since the suit for possession has been decreed on the basis of admission, it is essential to take note of the case of the defendant, as set out in the written statement.

5. The first preliminary objection was that the notice of termination was not legal, since the same did not terminate the lease from the end of the tenancy month. An objection was raised to the maintainability of the suit by placing reliance on section 7 of the Delhi (Urban Areas) Tenants Act, 1961. The defendant also invoked section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act by stating that the defendant is ready and willing to pay all arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.1994 to 31.12.2006 and Rs.86.40p p.a. amounting to Rs.1123.20.

6. The defendant also claimed that the suit is not maintainable in the light of clause 3 and 14 of the lease deed dated 14.01.1950 inasmuch, as, the defendant is entitled to renew the lease after the expiry of every 20 years on the same terms and conditions by increasing the rent at the rate of paisa one per rupee, and can continue in possession of the house built on the land.

7. The defendant/appellant claimed that the notice dated 12.04.2006 pertained only to an area admeasuring 300 sq yds, and not to the entire area of 2 bighas and 11 biswas, which had been leased out to the defendant and Sh. Ishwar Singh. Thus, the suit was not maintainable for partial ejectment. The defendant also pleaded that the suit was bad for non joinder of a necessary party viz. Sh. Ishwar Singh, who was also a co-lessee and there were other several sub-lessees of the defendant. The defendant also pleaded that the suit is barred under section 18 of the Slum Areas (Clearance and Improvement) Act, 1956. On merits, the defendant did not deny the creation of the lease in respect of 2 bighas and 11 biswas land, as aforesaid, vide registered lease deed dated 14.01.1950.

8. In para-3 of the written statement, the defendant, inter alia, stated “It is however not denied t