Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Simrit Singh - Appellant
Versus
Global Coordinates - Respondent
C.R.P. 23 of 2019 & CM Appl. 4254 of 2019 with CONT.CAS(C) 71 of 2019
Decided On : 04-01-2022
An unregistered lease agreement, not creating a fixed-term tenancy, defaults to a month-to-month tenancy upon termination, affecting possession and recovery of dues.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XII Rule 6 - Lease agreement - Unregistered lease deemed a month-to-month tenancy upon termination - Plaintiff sought possession and unpaid dues following lease disputes. (Paras 3, 5, and 9).
(B) Legal principles - An unregistered lease does not create a fixed-term tenancy and defaults in payment affect possession rights. (Paras 6).
(C) The Defendant acknowledged tenancy and was willing to vacate, asserting her rights to recover losses from early lease termination. (Paras 7, 8).
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff filed for possession of a property and claimed monetary reliefs following lease termination; the Defendant contested based on business operations in the property.
Findings of Court:
The Defendant is directed to vacate the premises and remove her belongings by a set date, while monetary claims remain for trial adjudication.
Issues: Whether the lease was validly terminated, and implications of the unregistered nature of the lease.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unregistered leases cannot confer fixed tenancy; the Plaintiff's right to possession was upheld based on the relationship's admission.
Result: Petition disposed of with specific directions regarding property possession.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to trial court's order in possession suit. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding termination and possession. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's directions for possession and responsibility. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. disposal of petition and pending applications. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
C.R.P. 23/2019 & CM APPL. 4254/2019
2. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 29th November, 2018 in CS. No. 7541/2016 titled Simrit Singh v M/s. Global Coordinates passed by the ld. ADJ-04, South East, Saket Court, New Delhi (hereinafter "Trial Court") by which the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC filed by the Plaintiff/Petitioner (hereinafter "Plaintiff") has been rejected by the Trial Court.
3. The petition arises out of a suit for possession filed by the Plaintiff in respect of the second floor of the property bearing No. D-19, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi (hereinafter "suit property") as also for recovery of rent, security, maintenance charges as well mesne profits. The Plaintiff entered into an agreement dated 1st September 2013 titled "leave and license agreement" which was in sum and substance a lease agreement. The case of the Plaintiff is that the lease agreement, though entered into for a period of 9 years, was unregistered. Hence the tenancy has to be construed as a month-to-month tenancy. The initial monthly rent for the suit property to be paid by the Respondent/Defendant (hereinafter "Defendant") was Rs.60,000/-, however, for the month of March, 2016 the monthly rent paid was Rs.80,132/- till 19th March 2016. The lease was terminated vide letter dated 7th January 2016 but the Defendant refused to give possession of the property back to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought the following reliefs from the Trial Court:
"a) Pass a decree of possession in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in respect of suit property, i.e., Second Floor of the property bearing No. D-19, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi, ad-measuring total area 3500 square feet approximately, alongwith the fittings and fixtures (more particularly shown in the plan annexed alongwith the suit and marked as ANNEXURE-A);
b) Pass a decree, in favour of Plaintiff and against; the Defendant, in a sum of Rs.2,24,202/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Two Hundred & Two only) for the arrears of maintenance and security charges and for unpaid rent till the termination of the tenancy;
c) Pass a decree, in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant, for mesne profits @ Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh & Fifty Thousand Only), per month, in respect of suit property, from 10th of April, 2016 till the date of actual handing over of the possession of suit property;
d) Award cost of the present suit in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant"
4. Mr. Srivastava, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the relationship between the Landlord and Tenant was admitted by the Defendant in his written statement. It was also admitted that the lease was unregistered, therefore, according to the Plaintiff, the decree the suit for possession ought to have been granted by the Trial Court on the basis of admission by the Defendant.
5. Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff further submits that the impugned order failed to take into consideration the fact that being an unregistered lease, it could not be construed for 9 years. The Trial Court has gone on the premise that the lease is still continuing and there has been no irregularity in the payment of rent. Thus, there is no valid termination and the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC has been dismissed.
6. He has taken the Court through pleadings as also the judgments in Jeevan Diesel and Electricals Ltd. v Jasbir Singh Chadha, RFA No. 179/2011 to argue that an unregistered lease deed cannot create a lease for a fixed period and unless the lease de
