The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of tenancy by a single co-owner is not valid without the necessary consent of all co-owners, and opposition from other co-owners can impact the entitlement for damages/mesne profits.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff/landlord impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 30.11.2005 whereby the trial court has dismissed the suit for the claim of the appellant/plaintiff/landlord towards damages/mesne profits for the period after termination of tenancy, on the ground that the tenancy of the respondent/defendant did not stand legally/validly terminated in terms of the appellant’s/plaintiff’s Notice dated 04.04.2001. The issue of damages/mesne profits was for the period from 01.05.2001 till the respondent/defendant admittedly vacated the suit by depositing the keys in the Court on 19.07.2003.

2. I may note that originally the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff/landlord was for both the relief of possession as well as mesne profits, but since possession of the suit/tenanted premises was surrendered, by depositing the keys of the suit premises in Court on 19.07.2003, the issue, therefore, remained only with respect to the claim/entitlement of the appellant/plaintiff/landlord for damages/mesne profits from 01.05.2001 till 19.07.2003.

3. I may also note that though the trial court did not grant any damages for the period 01.05.2001 to 19.07.2003, however, in terms of the existing agreement between the parties, the trial court granted an increase of 15% on the figure of rent of Rs. 10/- per sq.ft. with effect from 09.03.2000 till 08.03.2003 and thereafter further increase of rent of Rs. 15/- per sq.ft. with effect from 09.03.2003 to 19.07.2003. This amount of increased rent, granted by the trial court, to the appellant/plaintiff/landlord, was not an increase of rent in lieu of damages but, the increased amount was granted on the ground that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties till 19.07.2003 and hence the increased rent was payable under the terms of the agreement between a landlord and a tenant.

4. The limited issue for consideration before this Court whether the tenancy of the respondent/defendant/Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) stood validly terminated by the appellant/plaintiff/landlord in terms of his Legal Notice dated 04.04.2001 (Ex.PW1/2). Whereas the appellant/plaintiff/landlord claims that Legal Notice dated 04.04.2001 validly terminated the tenancy of the respondent/defendant of the suit premises being property no. 56, Jawala Heri, New Delhi, having an area of 2645 sq.ft., the respondent/defendant contends that appellant/plaintiff/landlord was only one of the many co-owners of the suit/tenanted premises and thus he could not have singularly and on his own terminated the tenancy, in the absence of the consent of the other co-owners.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff/landlord has argued that since the lease has been admittedly created only by the appellant/plaintiff/landlord in favour of the respondent/defendant, and the same is proved by the Letter dated 09.03.1987/Ex.PW1/D2 addressed by the respondent/defendant to the appellant/plaintiff/landlord solely, and also the handing over and taking over possession of the tenanted premises, having taken place only as between the appellant/plaintiff/landlord and the respondent/defendant vide Ex.PW1/D1, therefore the respondent/defendant cannot argue that appellant/plaintiff/landlord was not the sole person entitled to terminate the tenancy.

6. The counsel for the respondent/defendant then argued in response that though originally the suit premises were let out to the respondent/defendant by the appellant/plaintiff/landlord only, however, subsequently, an agreement was entered into between the appellant/plaintiff/landlord with his three brothers on 03.01.1997, and that after this agreement was entered into, the appellant/plaintiff/landlord by his Letter dated 03.01.1997 addressed to the respondent/defendant that the total rent of the suit property be divided equally between the four co-owners i.e. th