Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 291
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Sameer Madan & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
J.S. Dhillon & Anr. - Respondents
RFA No. 561 of 2014
Decided On : 31-01-2019
For the Appellant :Mr. Adit Singh, Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Kishore M. Gajaria and Mr. Aayush Paranjpe, Advocates
The main legal point established is that the burden of proving a single tenancy with a specific rent lies with the plaintiff, and in the absence of credible documentary evidence, separate tenancies at different rents will be upheld.
Headnote:
Obduracy - Tenancy Dispute - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - [Section 50]
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for possession and mesne profits claiming joint tenancy of different portions of a property. The appellants contested, denying a single tenancy and claiming separate tenancies for each portion at rents below Rs. 3,500 per month.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent failed to prove a single tenancy with a rent of Rs. 25,000/Rs. 40,000 per month. It held that the respondent was only entitled to possession and rent for the second-floor portion, and mesne profits were payable at the agreed rent of Rs. 5,000 per month.
Issues: The crucial issue was whether the suit was barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and the court found that the suit was not barred as there were different tenancies at different floors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent failed to prove a single tenancy and was only entitled to possession and rent for the second-floor portion. It also directed restitution of the basement portion to the appellant no. 2/defendant no. 2.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and disposed of partially, with the basement and ground floor portions decided in favor of the appellants, and the second floor portion decided in favor of the respondent. All pending applications were also disposed of.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
RFA No. 561/2014 and C.M. Appl. No. 4453/2017 (for directions), C.M. Appl. No 4197/2018 (for directions), C.M. Appl. No 54017/2018 (for extension of time to vacate the premises)
1. This is an unfortunate case where this Court is forced to pass a judgment on merits for allowing the appeal, and this is only because of the unnecessary and unreasonable obduracy shown by the respondent no. 1/plaintiff. The obduracy is because though the appellants/defendant nos. 1 and 2 were not bound to vacate the tenanted portions/premises, inasmuch as the different tenancies were within the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as the rent was below Rs. 3,500/- per month, yet the appellants/defendant nos. 1 and 2 agreed to vacate the different tenanted portions, and in fact have already vacated most of the portions of the tenancies except the portion on the ground floor (which was to be vacated by today i.e. 31.01.2019), and that the respondent no. 1/plaintiff for the compromise to sustain the impugned judgment of the trial court decreeing the suit for possession and mesne profits, only had to give consent whereby the respondent no. 1/plaintiff was to not press his F.I.R. filed against the appellants/defendant nos. 1 and 2 with respect to the alleged forging of the Rent Deeds, but the respondent no. 1/plaintiff states that he would not seek withdrawal and quashing of the F.I.R., but instead would invite a judgment from this Court on merits as regards the disputes between the parties.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent no. 1/plaintiff had filed the subject suit for possession and mesne profits pleading that the appellants/defendant nos. 1 and 2 were joint tenants under the respondent no. 1/plaintiff with respect to the basement, a portion of the ground floor, and a portion of the second floor of the property bearing No. 13, State Bank Colony, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi. The entire property was situated on a plot of land ad measuring 205.83 sq. yards. The defendant no. 3 in the suit namely, Sh. Narender Dua, was pleaded to be an illegal sub-tenant with respect to a tenanted portion, but now no relief was pressed against respondent no. 2/defendant no. 3 as he had vacated the portion occupied by him during the pendency of the suit. The respondent no. 1/plaintiff pleaded that the appellant no. 1/defendant no. 1/husband/Sh. Sameer Madan had initially taken two rooms, one toilet along with one kitchen on the ground floor for commercial purposes at a monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/- per month with effect from 15.08.2002 for a period of 24 months. This tenancy was an oral tenancy. It was further pleaded by the respondent no. 1/plaintiff that in July, 2004, the appellants/defendant nos. 1 and 2/husband and wife approached the respondent no. 1/plaintiff for the renewal of the tenancy and also to take on rent the entire basement along with one room with attached bathroom, one kitchen and one kaccha room on the second floor of the property. Accordingly, it is stated that a joint tenancy was created in favour of appellants/defendant nos. 1 and 2 with respect to the entire basement, two rooms and one toilet along with one kitchen on the ground floor, along with a portion on the second floor with effect from 01.08.2004. The case of the respondent no. 1/plaintiff was that the monthly rent of this total portion which was let out was Rs. 25,000/- per month and the lease was for a period of three years with effect from 01.08.2004. Admittedly, however, there was no written lease deed for this period of tenancy of three years commencing from 01.08.2004. The respondent no. 1/plaintiff further pleaded that in the month of July 2007, the appellants/defendant nos. 1 and 2 requested for the renewal of the lease for the period of one year and the total leased portion on different floors was again renewed for a period of one year form 15.07.2007. The agreed rent was said to have been increased from Rs. 25,000/- per month to Rs. 40
