Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 4722

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
M/s Dentedge Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Shri V. C. Jain – Respondent
RFA(COMM) 49 of 2023 & CM APPL. 13814 of 2023
Decided On : 03-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Vishal Chaudhary and Mr. Vivek Jha, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr. Sekhar Dasi, Mr. S.K. Gupta and Mr. Ayush Dasi, Advocates, for the Respondent.

The court emphasized the importance of lease deeds in establishing the landlord-tenant relationship and upheld the statutory rights of the landlord under the Transfer of Property Act and Commercial Courts Act.

Headnote:
Landlord-Tenant Dispute - Ownership - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Delhi Rent Control Act - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Order XII Rule 16 read with Order XV(A) CPC
Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed a suit for possession of a flat and recovery of damages against the appellants, alleging non-payment of rent and electricity charges. The appellants claimed an oral agreement to sell the property, but the court found no evidence of such an agreement.
Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the appellants' application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and allowed the respondent's application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Order XV(A) CPC, granting a decree of possession in favor of the respondent. The court also directed the appellants to deposit arrears of rent/mesne profit at a specified rate.
Issues: Ownership of the property, existence of landlord-tenant relationship, non-payment of rent and electricity charges, validity of oral agreement to sell
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Transfer of Property Act, Delhi Rent Control Act, and Commercial Courts Act to determine the landlord-tenant relationship, non-payment of rent, and the validity of the oral agreement to sell. The court found no evidence of the oral agreement and upheld the landlord-tenant relationship based on the lease deed.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court granted a decree of possession in favor of the respondent, directing the appellants to deposit arrears of rent/mesne profit at a specified rate.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)--This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated September 6, 2022 of the District Judge (Commercial Court)-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CS (COMM) No. 133/2022 whereby the learned District Judge has decided the application filed by the appellants herein under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and by the respondent herein under Order XII Rule 16 read with Order XV(A) CPC.

2. The suit has been filed by the respondent herein for possession of flat bearing No. 8/78, First Floor, Janpath, New Delhi and recovery of damages etc. against the appellants herein. The case of the respondent before the learned District Judge is that he is the owner of the above flat and the same was let out to the appellants on August 1, 2016 on monthly rent of Rs.31,000/- exclusive of water, maintenance and other charges vide lease deed dated August 12, 2016. Initially, the flat was let out to appellant No.2 vide lease deed dated May 17, 2016. The appellant No.2 vide her letter dated June 20, 2016 expressed her inability to continue with the tenancy and on her request, the tenancy was changed in the name of the appellant No.1 with the lease deed signed by the appellant No.2 on behalf of the appellant No.1. As per the lease deed, the rent would be increased by 5% after the expiry of every year.

3. The case of the respondent before the learned District Judge was that since March, 2020, the appellant No.1 stopped paying rent and a sum of Rs.7,16,100/- for the period from March 1, 2020 to December 31, 2021 became due and payable by the appellants. The appellants also stopped paying the electricity charges which made the respondent pay Rs.41,142/- on December 9, 2019, Rs.22,800/- on August 6, 2020, Rs.4,923/- on October 27, 2023 and Rs.6,106/- on January 19, 2021, totalling Rs.74,971/- to the NDMC to avoid disconnection. Despite repeated requests, the appellants did not clear the outstanding liabilities either.

4. It is stated that a notice was issued on December 13, 2021 calling upon the appellants to pay the arrears of rent, electricity charges etc. totaling to Rs.8,00,336/- along with interest and also terminating the tenancy from the midnight of December 31, 2021, calling upon them to hand over the vacant and physical possession of the tenanted premises.

5. It was the case of the respondent that w.e.f. January 1, 2022, the occupation of the appellants in the tenanted premises became unauthorised and they are liable to pay mesne profits/damages.

6. A written statement was filed by the appellants wherein it is stated that the respondent has not shown any document regarding ownership of the property. The alleged transaction that took place between the parties is not commercial in nature. The lease deed is an unregistered document and has no evidentiary value. The respondent did not comply with the provisions of Section 12(A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 before filing the suit. It was also stated that appellant No.2 admitted the execution of the lease deed of the property and the tenancy was transferred in the name of the appellant No.1 and a fresh lease deed was executed.

7. It was the case of the appellants that during the period of tenancy, the plaintiff/respondent on several occasions offered to sell the property to the appellants, but since the carpet area of the property was less than the requirement of the appellants, they declined. In February 2020, respondent again approached them with a proposal for making an investment of Rs.20 lakhs in the property, whereby the carpet area of the property would be doubled by making structural changes and adding a mezzanine floor. It was also proposed to sell the property for a consideration of Rs.35 lakhs. The appellants accordingly made an investment of Rs.20 lakhs.

8. It is stated that after entering into an understanding, the lease deed and relationship of the landlord and tenant came to an end. After February 2020 neither did the respondent