The legal point established is that non-payment of rent and delaying the disposal of a suit can be considered an abuse of the process of law, leading to dismissal of the appeals.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

RFA No. 775/2016 & 424/2017

1. These Regular First Appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC), are filed by the defendant/tenant against the impugned Judgment of the Trial Court dated 19.03.2016 and 01.02.2017 by which the trial court has decreed the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the respondent/plaintiff/landlord against the appellant/defendant/tenant. RFA No. 775/2016 is filed against the impugned Judgment dated 19.03.2016 decreeing the suit for possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. RFA No. 424/2017 is filed against the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 01.02.2017 decreeing the suit, as regards the relief of mesne profits but at the admitted rate of rent of Rs. 23,000/- per month as also arrears of rent totaling to Rs.3,35,000/- at the admitted rate of rent and a sum of Rs. 1,85,656/- as society maintenance charges.

RFA No. 775/2016

2. The facts of the case are that admittedly the appellant/defendant was inducted as a tenant of the suit property B-3/901, 9th Floor, Sunny Valley Apartment, Sector-12, Dwarka, New Delhi, in terms of the Lease Deed/Rent Agreement dated 23.08.2012 entered into between the appellant/defendant and Smt. Pushplata Jain, the wife of the respondent/plaintiff. The rate of rent admittedly as per the Rent Agreement dated 23.08.2012 was fixed at Rs. 23,000/- per month. The Rent Agreement was for eleven months only commencing from 01.09.2012, and the same is an unregistered Lease Agreement. The subject suit for possession and mesne profits was filed by the respondent/plaintiff pleading termination of tenancy of the appellant/defendant on account of non-payment of rent as also the fact that the tenancy being monthly tenancy was terminated in terms of a Legal Notice dated 02.12.2013.

3. In Delhi, once there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant, the tenancy is outside the scope of protection of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 if the rent is more than Rs. 3,500/- per month, then in such a scenario a suit for possession is decreed because even if the Legal Notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, is not served, yet filing of the suit is taken as notice of termination of tenancy vide Jeevan Diesel and Electricals Limited v. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) and Another (2010) 6 SCC 601.

4. In the present case, since the appellant/defendant is admittedly the tenant, and the rate of rent is Rs. 23,000/- per month and there is no registered lease deed entitling the appellant/defendant to stay in the tenanted premises for a period which has not expired. Trial Court, in my opinion, therefore, has committed no illegality in decreeing the suit for possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argued that as per the plaint, the suit property is owned by the respondent/plaintiff and one Smt. Renu Jain and since the appellant/defendant became a tenant of the late wife of the respondent/plaintiff, therefore, the respondent/plaintiff had no right to file unilaterally the subject suit for possession and mesne profit.

6. I cannot agree with this frivolous argument because the respondent/plaintiff is admittedly the husband of the original landlady Smt. Pushplata Jain and it is settled law that any one co-owner can always file a suit for possession and mesne profits against a tenant/trespasser unless there is an objection or opposition by any other co-owner of the suit property. In the present case, there is no opposition by any other co-owner of the suit property, and therefore, this argument urged on behalf of the appellant/defendant/tenant is rejected and it is held that the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to file the subject suit for possession and mesne profits.

7. Appellant/Defendant is quite clearly harassing the respondent/plaintiff/landlord, forcing him to file the subject suit for possession and mesne profits on 10.07.2014, and therefore this appeal being completely frivolous and abuse of the proc