The absence of extension of rent control laws to a specific area allows termination of tenancy by legal notice under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Service of summons can be considered as a valid notice under Section 106 of the Act, and the Court can make pragmatic interpretations of legislative intent.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

C.M. No. 6959/2012 (Exemption) Application allowed, subject to all just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. RFA No. 183/2012 and C.M. No. 6960/2012 (Stay)

1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 6.3.2012 decreeing the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the respondents/plaintiffs/landlords.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/defendant/tenant was given on rent a premises consisting of three shops situated at Khasra No. 701, Revenue Estate, Burari, Delhi. Though, there is no date of commencement of tenancy, which is mentioned in the impugned judgment or in the plaint, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant/tenant says that the tenancy commenced in the year 1993. The respondents/plaintiffs/landlords alleging non-payment of rent terminated the tenancy by means of a legal notice dated 29.6.2011, and which was replied to by the appellant/defendant/tenant vide reply dated 18.7.2011. As the appellant/defendant/tenant failed to vacate the suit property, the subject suit for possession and mesne profits came to be filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has not been extended by any notification under Section 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 to the area in question. Therefore, the monthly tenancies, such as those of the appellant, can always be terminated by means of a legal notice issued under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Though there may be two views with respect to the language contained in the notice dated 29.6.2011 qua termination under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, however, it is clear that the tenancy was sought to be terminated by means of the legal notice dated 29.6.2011, and the relevant portion of which reads as under:-

“3. That my client vide the present legal notice due to facts stated above terminate and determine your tenancy from the date of receipt of the present notice and ask you to vacate the tenanted premises and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the tenanted premises on or before the date and month of receipt of the present notice. In the facts and circumstances stated above, you hereby are directed to pay the arrears of rent i.e. Rs.5,500/- per month of each shop above mentioned from 01.06.2008 to 30.06.2011 that is 36 months total interest @ 24% P.A. and handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the tenanted premises under your tenancy within 15 days from the date of receipt of present legal notice and Rs.5,500/- for the cost of the instant legal notice, failing which you shall be liable to all the costs and consequences which please note. Copy kept in my office for further action.”

4. Even assuming that the notice as per the case of the appellant/defendant/tenant is not a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the service of summons in the suit can always be treated as a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. I have held in the judgment reported as M/s. Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. v. M/s. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) & Anr. 2011 (183) DLT 712, that service of summons of the suit for possession can be treated as a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and which aspect can be read alongwith Order 7 Rule 7 CPC. I have held that Court should take a pragmatic view once the tenant has a notice of 15 days to vacate in view of the legislative intendment as demonstrated by Act 3 of 2003, amending Section 106 of the Act. An SLP against the said judgment being SLP No.15740/2011 has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 7.7.2011.

5. This is a case which has been decreed after trial. In view of the fact that there is no dispute about the relationship of landlord and tenant as