Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Mini Pushkarna, JJ.
M/s Rajendras Properties (delhi) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Ashok Bansal & Ors. – Respondents
RFA(OS) 84 of 2013 & C.M.No.37241 of 2023
Decided On : 08-08-2023
Ejectment - Lease Termination - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The court dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and passed a decree of ejectment in favor of respondents No.1 to 5. The appellants challenged the entitlement and status of respondents No.1 to 5, questioning the transfer of title from the original landlord. The court found the plea without merit, citing the attornment letter from the original landlord and the passage of twelve years since the attornment. The court also held that the company appellant ceased to operate and could not maintain the proceedings. The appeal was dismissed on both merits and maintainability.
Fact of the Case:
The original landlord attorned the appellants' tenancy in favor of respondents No.1 to 5. The appellants challenged the entitlement and status of respondents No.1 to 5, questioning the transfer of title from the original landlord. The company appellant ceased to operate and could not maintain the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the plea without merit, citing the attornment letter from the original landlord and the passage of twelve years since the attornment. The court also held that the company appellant ceased to operate and could not maintain the proceedings. The appeal was dismissed on both merits and maintainability.
Issues: The entitlement and status of respondents No.1 to 5, the transfer of title from the original landlord, and the maintainability of the proceedings by the company appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The attornment letter from the original landlord and the passage of twelve years since the attornment were crucial in establishing the entitlement and status of respondents No.1 to 5. The court also held that the company appellant ceased to operate and could not maintain the proceedings.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed on both merits and maintainability.
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present appeal has been filed challenging the decree of ejectment dated 23rd May 2013 and order dated 13th May 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.S. (O.S.) No. 2576/2010, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed I.A. 8796/2011, application under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") filed on behalf of appellant no.1 herein and has passed an ejectment decree as well as put the suit on trial for mesne profits.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings on record are that one M/s Ved Prakash Aggarwal & Sons (HUF) was the original landlord/owner of the property in question bearing no. M-116, Connaught Place also known as M-116A, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. The said original owner/landlord had executed two different lease deeds dated 27th August, 1980 and 25th August, 1981 with respect to the property in favour of appellant no.1. The rent mentioned in the two respective lease deeds was Rs.600/- and Rs.250/- per month. The said lease deeds gave right to appellant no.1 to induct further sub-tenants, apart from other rights the aforesaid lease deeds' as mentioned in
3. Accordingly, appellant no.1 inducted various sub-tenants in the property after converting the same into 18 units/spaces. Further, a few of those sub-tenants tenants/occupiers' gave possession of their respective spaces to other sub-
4. Subsequently, vide letter dated 31st March, 2001 appellant no.1 was informed by the original owner/landlord, M/s Ved Prakash Aggarwal & Sons (HUF) that the rights with respect to the property in question stand created in favour of respondents No.1 to 5 herein. Appellant no.1 sent reply dated 23rd May, 2001 asking for details of the transfer documents and to execute fresh lease deed, if there were valid documents. As per the case of appellants, the said details were never furnished. Thus, appellant no.1 did not accept respondents No.1 to 5 to be the actual transferee or his landlord.
5. Afterwards, appellant no.1 filed various suits to deposit rent in court, in which respondents No. 1 to 5 herein were also made parties, in addition to the original owner/landlord, M/s Ved Prakash Aggarwal & Sons (HUF). Respondents No.1 to 5 herein were allowed to withdraw the rent in the said suits filed on behalf of appellant no.1 herein.
6. Subsequently, a suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits, CS (OS) No. 2576/2010 was filed by respondents No.1 to 5 herein before this Court. In the said suit, respondents No.1 to 5 raised a plea that the lease of appellant no.1 was terminated vide notice dated 24th August, 2006. Since rent qua the said property in question fetched a rate higher than Rs.3500/- per month (in view of arrangement of sub-tenants with the actual occupiers), it was averred that respondents No.1 to 5 herein were entitled for a decree of possession.
7. Appellant no.1 filed an application, being I.A. No. 8796/2011 in the said suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint on the basis that there was no cause of action in favour of respondents herein, in as much as the suit for possession was filed by them without there being any document of title or transfer document of any nature. Vide order dated 13th May, 2013, the learned Single Judge dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Thereafter, vide a further order dated 23rd May, 2013, learned Single Judge passed the decree of ejectment in favour of respondents No.1 to 5. The present appeal has been filed by appellants being aggrieved by the said order dated 13th May, 2013 and decree of ejectment dated 23rd May, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge.
8. On behalf of appellants, it is contended that appellants are within their legal right to deny the title of respondents No. 1 to 5/plaintiffs, in view of the fact that appellants were not put in possession of the suit properties by said respondents/plaintiffs and no title document is existing in their favour. Learned counsel for ap
The attornment of tenancy by the original landlord and the passage of twelve years since the attornment were crucial in establishing the entitlement and status of respondents No.1 to 5.
The court established that in eviction proceedings under the Bombay Rent Act, the landlord's title is irrelevant; only the landlord-tenant relationship needs to be proven.
In eviction proceedings governed by rent control laws, a landlord need not prove absolute title, only the right to possession. A licensee is estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act from questi....
A landlord under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act can seek eviction for non-payment of rent and bonafide necessity, regardless of ownership status, as long as the landlord-tenant relations....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a tenant's request for clarification about the derivative title of the landlord, without renouncing the status as a tenant, may not be treated....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
