Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 5645

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J.
Nawabuddin - Appellant
Versus
Shaffiulla @ Raja - Respondent
RFA 462 of 2023 and CM Appl. 30481 of 2023
Decided On : 22-12-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Santosh Pratap, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Samyan Khetarpal, Mr. Nitesh Goyal, Mr. Vijay Waghe, Ms. Prakriti Anand, Advocates, for the Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the given judgment is that the relationship between landlord and tenant must be proved, the rate of rent must be established, and the absence of a registered subsisting lease agreement can impact the outcome of a case involving possession of tenanted premises.

Headnote:
Condonation of Delay - Civil Procedure - Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC - Section 106 of TP Act 1882 - Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 107 of TP Act 1882 - Section 17 and 49 of The Registration Act, 1908 - [Condonation of Delay] - [Civil Procedure] - [Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC, Section 106 of TP Act 1882, Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 107 of TP Act 1882, Section 17 and 49 of The Registration Act, 1908] - This judgment discusses the application seeking condonation of 10 days delay in refiling the appeal, and the appeal challenging the order passed in C.S. No. 55 of 2019. The court analyzed the facts leading to the present appeal, the pleadings, observations of the learned trial court, submissions on behalf of the appellant and respondent, and the analysis and findings of the court. The court found that the relationship between landlord and tenant was proved, the rate of rent was Rs. 5000 per month, the absence of a registered subsisting lease agreement, and the failure of the tenant to hand over the possession of the tenanted premises. The court concluded that there were no infirmities in the impugned order and dismissed the instant appeal.
Fact of the Case:
This is an application seeking condonation of 10 days delay in refiling the appeal. This is an appeal challenging the order dated 21.02.2023 passed in C.S. No. 55 of 2019 titled as 'Shafiullah @ Raja v. Salman Malik and others' wherein the learned trial court allowed the application filed by the respondent under Order 12 Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC') by passing a preliminary decree for possession and directing the appellant and Mr. Salman Malik/defendant no. 1 to vacate the suit premises within two months and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relationship between landlord and tenant was proved, the rate of rent was Rs. 5000 per month, the absence of a registered subsisting lease agreement, and the failure of the tenant to hand over the possession of the tenanted premises. The court concluded that there were no infirmities in the impugned order and dismissed the instant appeal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the relationship between landlord and tenant, the rate of rent, the absence of a registered subsisting lease agreement, and the failure of the tenant to hand over the possession of the tenanted premises.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relationship between landlord and tenant was proved, the rate of rent was Rs. 5000 per month, the absence of a registered subsisting lease agreement, and the failure of the tenant to hand over the possession of the tenanted premises, which led to the dismissal of the instant appeal.
Final Decision: The court concluded that there were no infirmities in the impugned order and dismissed the instant appeal.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. -

CM APPL. 30484/2023

1. This is an application seeking condonation of 10 days delay in refiling the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and delay of 10 days is condoned in re-filing the present appeal.

RFA 462 of 2023

3. This is an appeal challenging the order dated 21.02.2023 ("impugned order") passed in C.S. No. 55 of 2019 titled as "Shafiullah @ Raja v. Salman Malik and others" wherein the learned trial court allowed the application filed by the respondent under Order 12 Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure ("CPC") by passing a preliminary decree for possession and directing the appellant and Mr. Salman Malik/defendant no. 1 to vacate the suit premises within two months and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent.

PLEADINGS

4. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal is that the respondent is the absolute owner of the property i.e. Shop No. 1 and 2 at Ground Floor of property No. 12A/52F, Khasra No. 319, Maujpur, Shahdara, Delhi ("tenanted premises"). A lease deed was entered into dated 27.08.2016 ("first agreement") with respect to the tenanted premises for commercial purposes for a fixed period of 11 months from 15.08.2016 to 14.07.2017 at a monthly rent of Rs. 30,000 per month.

5. Appellant along with defendant no. 1 started doing the business of sale and purchase of electronic gadgets in the name and style of M/s. Malik Electronics. As appellant and defendant no. 1 were irregular in payments of rents and electricity bills, respondent reminded them to make such payments but despite that they gave false assurances and later on they stopped making payments.

6. On expiry of lease period, respondent asked appellant and defendant no. 1 to vacate the tenanted premises. However, both of them requested respondent to extend the lease and, on their assurances, respondent agreed to extend the lease further for a period of 11 months with increased rate of rent by 30% per annum instead of 10% per annum as per clause 14 of the first agreement.

7. Appellant and defendant no. 1 paid the increased rent i.e. Rs. 40,000/-per month from August, 2017 till May, 2018, but thereafter, appellant and defendant no. 1 stopped paying rent. Appellant and defendant no. 1 were in unauthorized possession of the tenanted premises without any payment of rent or arrears. Since appellant and defendant no. 1 were in default in paying rent, respondent has sought the recovery of the same.

8. Respondent issued legal notice dated 11.09.2018 to defendant no. 1 calling upon him to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the tenanted premises after expiry of lease period. Since, said notice was not responded and appellant and defendant no. 1 failed to hand over the possession, respondent was constrained to file the suit for possession, arrears of rent, electricity, and mesne profits against the appellant and defendant no. 1.

9. Pursuant to the issuance of summons to the appellant and defendant no. 1, they entered appearance but sought adjournments to file written statement. Despite several opportunities, appellant and defendant no. 1 did not file their written statement and vide order dated 14.10.2019, their right to file written statement was closed as they failed to file written statement within limitation. Consequently, their defence was also struck off.

10. Thereafter, respondent filed an application under Order 15A of CPC seeking a direction to appellant and defendant no. 1 to deposit an amount of Rs. 40,000 per month from 01.05.2018 and continue to pay Rs. 40,000 per month during the pendency of the suit.

11. To the above application, appellant filed his reply wherein it was contested that the rent is continuously being paid to the respondent. So far as electricity bills are concerned, the appellant stated that the respondent failed to show that how much electricity bill is pending towards the appellant and in connivance with electricity department, respon