Point of Law: An application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, could not be treated as res judicata as same are applicable only to findings which are given after a full-fledged trial.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter, CPC) seeks to assail the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2022, (as rectified on 14.07.2022), passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, Delhi in CS No. 9939/2016. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has decreed the respondents’/plaintiffs’ suit for possession and arrears of rent @3750/- per month for the period between February 1998 to September 1999 alongwith monthly mesne profits @ 5000/- with an annual increase of 10% w.e.f., October 1999, till the date of recovery of possession.

2. Before dealing with the rival submissions of the parties, it would be apposite to note the brief factual matrix.

3. The suit property being property No. 1500, 1502-1508, Kashmere Gate, New Delhi-1100066 (hereinafter, ‘suit property’) was let out by one Mst. Sultana Bi to her son Mr. Sheikh Mohd. Ejaz by way of a registered lease deed 10.07.1968, who then, with her consent, let out the same to the appellant by way of a registered lease deed dated 26.08.1968. As per this lease deed, the property was let out for an initial period of 20 years with an option to the appellant to seek renewal of the same for another period of 10 years. The monthly rent of the suit property for the initial period of 20 years was fixed at Rs. 4000/- exclusive of property taxes, theatre expenses etc, which rent was to be automatically increased by 25% for the extended period of 10 years. However, this rent was fixed subject to the appellant carrying out renovations in the suit property after obtaining necessary sanctions. It was also agreed that in case the appellant does not carry out any remodelling or renovations, the monthly rent would be Rs. 3000/-. It is the common case of the parties that these renovations were never carried out and, therefore, the monthly rent of the suit property remained Rs. 3000/- for the initial lease period of 20 years.

4. In accordance with the Clause 4 of this lease deed, in case the appellant wanted to exercise its right of extension of the lease for a further period of 10 years, it was incumbent upon the appellant to give a notice to the lessor, atleast six months before the expiry of the initial lease period of 20 years. In accordance with this clause, the appellant on 17.08.1987, i.e., before the expiry of the stipulated lease period of 20 years on 31.07.1988, approached Md. Ejaz exercising its option for continuing its lease for a further period of 10 years on the same terms and conditions except the increase in rent as provided in the lease deed.

5. However, since the lease in favour of Md. Ejaz was subsequently terminated, the appellant became the lessee of Mst. Sultana Bi, who vide her notice dated 05.07.1988, called upon the appellant to handover the vacant possession of the property on the ground that the lease stood terminated on 31.07.1988. Since the appellant did not reply to the aforesaid notice, Mst. Sultana Bi served yet another notice on the appellant on 31.07.1988, wherein it was alleged that since the appellant was defaulting in the payment of rent and had also sublet some parts of the property, it was liable to handover vacant possession of the suit property upon expiry of the lease on 31.07.1988. The appellant responded to these two notices vide its reply dated 19.08.1988 wherein, while denying that it was in default in payment of rent or that it had sub-let the suit property, claimed that it had already exercised its option to the continue the lease for a further period of 10 years. It was therefore, averred by the appellant that it was not an unauthorized occupant as it was occupying the premises as a valid lessee till 31.07.1998.

6. Since the appellant, despite the receipt of the aforesaid notices, refused to vacate the suit property on the premise that its lease stood extended for another period of 10 years and taking into account that the property was situated in a notified slum area, Mst. Sultan