Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3823
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J.
Elcee Plastic Industries & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Harkishan Dass (Since Deceased) Through Its Lrs. – Respondent
RSA No. 228 of 2017
Decided On : 20-09-2017
For the Appellants :Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sudhir Sukhija, Mr. Shivam Garg and Mr. Rama Shankar, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Ajay Gupta and Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocates.
The presence of a boundary wall does not necessarily make tenanted land premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Headnote:
Delhi Rent Control Act - Tenanted Premises - Section 2(i) - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a suit for possession of a tenanted land after the lease period expired. The appellants, as tenants, argued that the land was premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act, thus barring the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lease deed clearly indicated that only land was let out, and the presence of a boundary wall did not make it premises under the Act. The court also dismissed the appellants' argument regarding the lease commencement date.
Issues: Interpretation of the lease deed and the definition of 'premises' under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The presence of a boundary wall did not transform the tenanted land into premises under the Act. The lease deed clearly indicated that only land was let out, and the court rejected the appellants' arguments based on the lease commencement date.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay costs to the respondents.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial court dated 7.6.2014 and the first appellate court dated 7.6.2017; by which the suit for possession filed by the respondents/plaintiffs with respect to the tenanted premises being land comprised in Plot No.21, Friends Colony, Krishna Nagar, Khasra No.1126/347-370 in Village Jhilmil Tahirpur, G.T.Road, Shahdara, Delhi admeasuring 462 sq. yards has been decreed. The operative para of the judgment of the trial court decreeing the suit is para 11 and this para 11 reads as under:-
“11. As all the issues have been decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and plaintiff is entitled to the following reliefs:-
(i) Decree for ejectment/possession of the plot of land measuring 462 Sq. yards along with the boundary wall and the superstructure existing thereon forming part of plot No.21, Friends Colony, Krishan Nagar, Khasra No.1126/347-370 in Village Jhilmil, Tahirpur, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi as shown in site plan Ex. P-2 and defendants are directed to remove all the construction whatever existing on the tenanted land and to hand over the land with boundary walls of 12 feet to plaintiff and in case of failure of defendants to remove the construction within 6 months from the date of judgment, plaintiff will be entitled to get the decree of possession executed by removing the existing construction at the cost of defendants.
(ii) The recovery of damages/mesne profits from 01.04.1993 with 15% yearly cumulative increase on the last rent paid i.e Rs. 750/- along with simple interest @ 10% per annum to be payable from the end of each illegal month of occupation and till the date of decree only and interest will be paid on the difference of amount to be payable by the defendant as per above calculation and the amount which has already been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff till handing over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
(iii) Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
(iv) Decree Sheet be prepared after payment of court fee on arrears of rent/damages/mesne profits till the date of judgment. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.”
2. The subject suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against the appellants/defendants pleading that only an open plot of land of about 462 sq. yds. with a boundary wall, being the said tenanted land, was let out by the respondents/plaintiffs to the appellants/defendants in terms of the lease deed dated 10.1.1973. In terms of the lease deed a boundary wall was to be constructed by the respondents/plaintiffs up to 31.3.1973, which was done, and the lease thereafter commenced from 1.4.1973. In terms of the registered lease deed dated 10.1.1973 the period of lease was 20 years and which had to be commenced after construction of the boundary wall around the plot by the respondents/plaintiffs/landlord which was constructed by 31.3.1973, and therefore, period of 20 years of the lease will have to be taken from 1.4.1973. Respondents/plaintiffs pleaded that the term of the lease of the suit land expired on 31.3.1993 and since the appellants/defendants failed to vacate the suit/tenanted premises, hence, the subject suit for possession and mesne profits was filed. I may note that the appellants/defendants are partnership firm and its partners and who were the tenants of the suit premises.
3. The appellants/defendants contested the suit and the main defence, and really the only defence, was that what was let out to the appellants/defendants was not a plot of a land but was premises i.e the constructed premises, and therefore, the appellants/defendants have protection of their tenancy unde
