Point of law: Termination of lease - Default in payment of rent - Oral Agreement to sell - Prime property fetching a rent of Rs. 2,30,000/- per month cannot possibly be agreed to have been sold for a pittance of Rs. 2.50 crores - Hence oral agreement sham and bogus.

JUDGMENT :

JAYANT NATH, J.

I.A. Nos. 1490/2021 (under Order XII Rule 6)

1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC seeking a decree as follows:-

“(1) Pass a decree for possession of the property bearing no. W-6/19, Situated at Western Avenue, Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062 to the Plaintiff; as prayed in the present suit.

(2) Direct the Defendant to pay arrears in rent, as prayed.”

2. The prayer in the suit reads as follows:-

“(i) Pass Decree for delivery of possession of the property bearing W-6/19, situated at Western Avenue, Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062 to the Plaintiff.

(ii) Pass Decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant for Damages/Mesne Profits calculated at Rs. 12,000/- per day along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of proceeding of initialization of the suit & till the date of disposal/handing over of the vacant possession by the defendant.

(iii) Direct the Defendant to pay the arrear of rent @ Rs. 14,10,000/- to the Plaintiff along with 18% interest and deposit as claimed in Para 9 of the present suit.

(iv) Pass a Decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant, his legal heirs, successors, assignees, representatives, or any person related to defendant from creating any third-party interest, rights or title in respect of the suit property i.e. property bearing No. W-6/19, Situated at Western Avenue, Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062.”

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property bearing No. W-6/19, situated at Western Avenue, Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062 (hereinafter referred to as the “Suit Property”). The plaintiff and her husband are aged about 72 years and 78 years and are senior citizens dependent on the rental income from the suit property. Both, the plaintiff and her husband, are suffering from various medical complications.

4. It is stated that the suit property was initially leased to the defendant by an unregistered lease deed dated 25.08.2016 for a period of 3 years w.e.f. 01.10.2016 to 30.09.2019. On a request from the defendant dated 02.09.2019 qua extension of the lease for a further period of 13 months, the plaintiff agreed to extend the lease for the said 13 months period i.e. from 01.10.2019 to 31.10.2020. However, the initial rent that was agreed upon being Rs. 2 lakh per month was enhanced to Rs. 2,30,000/- per month. The defendant had agreed to pay the electricity bills for the period the property was in his possession and to maintain the septic tank periodically at his costs and expenses. It is stated that by letter dated 30.07.2020 and 07.09.2020, the defendant has admitted residing in the suit property as a lessee. The defendant is persistently in default of payment of rent since April, 2020 to October, 2020 at the rate of Rs. 2,30,000/- per month with a total outstanding balance of Rs. 14,10,000/-.

5. Hence, the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant by notice dated 16.09.2020 for termination of the lease under Section 106 and Section 111 (a) and (g)(1) of the Transfer of Property Act and calling upon the defendant to vacate the property by 31.10.2020. It is stated that the pre-determined liquidated damages at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per day as mesne profit after termination of the lease were also sought on account of illegal and unlawful possession of the premises in terms of the lease dated 20.09.2019. A reply was received from the counsel for the defendant where an allegation has been made that there was an oral agreement to sell the suit property between the parties. Hence, the present suit for possession.

6. The defendant has filed his written statement. It is admitted in the written statement that the defendant entered into a tenancy agreement dated 25.08.2016 with the plaintiff. It is stated that during the subsistence of the lease/tenancy agreement, the defendant at the instance of the plaintiff entered into an oral agreement to sell the suit property in question with th