CS(OS) 2731/2012 & IA No.10420/2013

1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of possession and ejectment against the defendant/partners of defendant in respect of suit property Shop No.25, situated in property No.1520/II, Ground Floor, Bhagirath Palace, Chandani Chowk, Delhi. Relief of damages and mesne profits for the period April 2012 to August 2012 are also sought.

2. As per the averments in the plaint the plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner of the suit property and the owner and landlord. The defendant is described as a trespasser. Hence, the present suit for eviction.

3. The property was originally said to be owned by M/s. Munnalal Ram Richpal a registered partnership firm which had let out the property to the defendant for commercial use at a monthly rent of Rs.136/-per month. Due to subsequent sale, the property stood transferred to M/s. Sudhir Kumar Garg, Adhir Kumar Garg and Praveen Kumar & Sons. The said persons sold the property to Mrs.Meeru Nagpal vide sale deed dated 8.4.2010. The plaintiffs are said to have bought the property from the said Mrs.Meeru Nagpal vide sale deed dated 9.4.2010.

4. The plaintiffs having purchased the suit property wrote a letter dated 13.10.2010 to the defendant pointing out about the purchase of the said property by the plaintiff and claiming the agreed rent. It is stated that the defendant duly received the said communication on 23.10.2010 and paid the rent to the plaintiff w.e.f. 9.4.2010 to 31.3.2012 @ Rs.136/-per month vide cheque drawn on ICICI Bank, Delhi. Plaintiff is stated to have issued a rental receipt.

5. The plaintiffs it is urged being owners and landlords of the suit property filed a petition under section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 seeking permission from the authorities to file an Eviction Petition against the defendant. It is urged that despite the defendant having admitted and attorned to the plaintiff as owner and landlord, the defendant filed a written statement in the said Eviction Petition denying the title of the plaintiff to the suit property and denying the relationship of landlord and tenant. It is urged that the denial of title of the plaintiff to the suit property by the defendant in these facts and circumstances tantamounts to repudiation/forfeiture of the relationship of landlord and tenant by the defendant. Hence, it is urged that on account of repudiation and denial by the defendant, the defendant ceased to be a tenant of the suit premises and has become an unauthorised occupant. It is also submitted that no rent has been tendered or offered w.e.f. 1.4.2012 by the defendant showing a complete repudiation of the relationship of landlord and tenant by the defendant. As the defendant continued to illegally occupy the suit property, the plaintiff sent a notice dated 5.6.2012 whereby the defendant was called upon to hand over peaceful vacant possession of the suit premises. The defendant duly received the notice and sent a reply dated 23.6.2012 through his advocate. Alongwith the said reply the defendant sent a cheque for Rs.3,432/-purportedly being rental for 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2014. The plaintiffs sent a rejoinder dated 4.7.2012 refuting the contentions of the defendant and the cheque was returned back stating that the defendant is in unauthorised and illegal use and occupation of the suit property and as such was liable to pay damages and mesne profits.

6. The defendant has filed his written statement. In the written statement, a preliminary objection has been raised that the suit is liable to be rejected in view of section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It is further stated on merits that the defendant nowhere in the written statement has denied the title of the plaintiff in the tenanted premises. It is stated that the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable. It is denied that the defendant has repudiated the relationship as landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant a