2021 Supreme(Del) 2057

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Ashok Kumar Bagga - Appellant
Versus
Rajvinder Kaur - Respondent
R.F.A. No. 226 of 2020; C.M. Appl No. 20247 of 2020
Decided On : 07-04-2021

Headnote:

LANDLORD TENANT - SUIT FOR POSSESSION - APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XII RULE 6 CPC - ADMISSIONS - INTERPRETATION OF ORDER XII RULE 6 CPC - TENANCY TERMINATED BY EFFLUX OF TIME - NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT FOR EXTENSION OF LEASE - TENANT AT SUFFERANCE - ACCEPTANCE OF RENT AFTER TERMINATION OF LEASE DOES NOT CREATE TENANCY - DECREE FOR POSSESSION PASSED ON ADMISSIONS.

Fact of the Case:

Respondent filed a suit against the Appellant for possession, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits qua the suit property being shop No. 4, Ground Floor, J-5/121, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027 (hereinafter referred to as suit property). Respondent premised the suit on the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. It was pleaded that Respondent had let out the suit property to the Appellant in the year 2012 on the basis of a registered Lease Agreement executed between the parties on 10.10.2012 for a period of two years. The second registered Lease Agreement was executed on 10.10.2014, for a period of one year. The third and last Agreement was executed on 12.10.2015 for a period of 2 years at an enhanced monthly rent of Rs. 16,800/-, for the first year and Rs. 17,500/- for the second year. Under the Agreement it was specifically agreed between the parties that if after the expiry of the tenancy period, the tenancy was extended for another period, with the mutual consent, then the monthly rent will be increased @ 5% and fresh Agreement will be signed by both the parties. This was translated in Clause 27(A) of the Lease Agreement. It was the case of the Respondent that the tenancy came to an end by efflux of time on 10.10.2017, but Appellant failed to vacate the suit property. Respondent further pleaded that Appellant sent a notice dated 26.09.2017, requesting the Respondent to extend the Lease for another two years. Respondent vide reply dated 09.10.2017 responded to the said notice refusing to extend the lease and instead called upon the Appellant to vacate the suit premises. It was further averred that instead of vacating the suit premises, Appellant started unilaterally depositing the increased rent, through a cheque @ Rs. 18,375/- per month, in the bank account of the Respondent, without the consent and knowledge of the Respondent. Finding no alternative, Respondent sent a legal notice dated 06.12.2017 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to the Appellant calling upon him to vacate the suit property, within 15 days of receipt of notice and pay damages @ Rs. 1,000/- per day with effect from 11.10.2017 till handing over of possession. Notice was duly served upon the Appellant and was responded to by reply dated 02.01.2018. In reply, Appellant took a stand that lease had been extended, albeit orally, for a further period of two years from 10.10.2017 and also referred to six post-dated cheques, sent by him for a sum of Rs.18,375/- each, towards the rent. Respondent pleaded that lease had not been extended after the last Lease Agreement executed on 12.10.2015 for a period of two years and the Respondent never accepted the rent. Appellant had been depositing the cheques in the bank account on his own accord, which did not amount to extending the lease of the suit premises, as the deposits were without the consent and knowledge of the Respondent. Since Appellant did not vacate the suit premises, Respondent was constrained to institute a suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Appellant had admitted the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, the rate of rent, and the execution of the three Lease Agreements. The only issue was regarding the termination of the lease. The Court rejected the Appellant's plea of an oral agreement extending the lease beyond 10.10.2017, noting that the Agreement dated 12.10.2015 required extension of the lease to be by a mutual agreement in writing and signed by the parties, which was not done. The Court also noted that the Respondent had sent a legal notice terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which was admittedly served on the Appellant. The Court held that the mere acceptance of rent by the Respondent after the date of termination did not create a tenancy, as held by the Supreme Court in C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran, (2006) 1 SCC 228 and Delhi Jal Board v. Surendra P.Malik, 2003 103 DLT 151 (DB). The Court also rejected the Appellant's argument that the Respondent was not entitled to a decree of possession on the basis of admissions, as the admissions were unequivocal and unambiguous, and met the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Payal Vision Ltd. v. Radhika Chaudhary, (2012) 11 SCC 405.

Issues: 1. Whether the Appellant's admissions were unequivocal and unambiguous to entitle the Respondent to a partial decree on admission. 2. Whether the Appellant's plea of an oral agreement extending the lease beyond 10.10.2017 was tenable. 3. Whether the acceptance of rent by the Respondent after the date of termination created a tenancy.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. In a suit for possession/ejectment by a landlord against a tenant, the landlord must establish the relationship of landlord-tenant, the termination of the tenancy, and that the tenancy is not protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. 2. An oral agreement extending a lease beyond the term specified in a written Lease Agreement is not valid unless it is supported by a writing signed by the parties. 3. The mere acceptance of rent by a landlord after the termination of a lease does not create a tenancy.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the Trial Court decreeing possession of the suit property in favor of the Respondent.