The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and the authority of the society's president to file a suit for possession.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. These three Regular Second Appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) are filed against the identical and concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 15.12.2014 and the First Appellate Court dated 10.6.2016; by which the courts below have decreed the suit for possession filed by the respondent/plaintiff/society/ landlord against the appellants/defendants/tenants with respect to suit properties being shops in Dada Dev Mandir Complex, Palam, Delhi. For the sake of convenience, since facts are more or less identical, I will refer to the facts of RSA No.286/2016 which is with respect to the suit for possession of shop no.27.

2. Respondent/plaintiff is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Appellant/defendant admits that he is a tenant of the respondent/society. In Delhi, when a suit is filed by a landlord against a tenant for possession and mesne profits with respect to the tenanted premises, it is to be seen firstly as to whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, secondly as to whether if the suit premises are governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) i.e if the rent is more than Rs.3,500/- per month then the tenant does not have protection of the Act or if the Act is not extended to the area where the tenanted premises are located, and thirdly and finally as to whether the tenancy of the tenant has been validly terminated.

3. In the present case, there is no dispute that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. So far as the issue of service of legal notice for termination of the monthly tenancy is concerned, it is seen that the Legal Notice dated 16.7.2012 issued by the respondent/landlord has been proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/9 (Colly.). In any case, service of a legal notice, and as rightly held by the trial court, is not sine qua non for filing of the suit for possession against a tenant because filing of the suit itself is treated as a notice of termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) & Anr. 2011 (183) DLT 712.To the same effect is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh (HUF), (2008) 2 SCC 728.

4. The first important issue in this case to be determined is as to whether the tenanted premises have or do not have protection of the Act. Another issue raised on behalf of the appellant/defendant/tenant is as to whether the suit has been properly filed on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff/society.

5. As per Section 1(2) of the Act, those tenanted premises have protection of the Act for which a notification is issued by the Government covering that area under the Act. This is clear not only from the plain reading of Section 1(2) of the Act, but this issue has also been pronounced by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Mitter Sen Jain Vs. Shakuntala Devi (2000) 9 SCC 720.

6(i) Let us therefore examine as to whether there is any notification issued under Section 1(2) of the Act with respect to the area in question where the tenanted shop is located.

(ii) In this regard, it is seen that on behalf of the appellant/defendant, evidence was led of the government witness who appeared as DW3 and this witness proved the two notifications issued by the Central Government under the proviso to Section 1(2) of the Act and which were exhibited as Ex.DW3/A (Colly.) and Ex.DW3/B. This witness DW3 also deposed that except the aforesaid two notifications, no other notification was issued by the Central Government extending the operation of the Act to an area which is not covered under the notifications Ex.DW3/A (Colly.) and Ex.DW3/B. Admittedly, the area of village Palam where the tenanted shop is situated does not fall in t