The payment of an advance or premium does not confer a perpetual tenancy right. Moreover, the institution of a legal suit for possession serves as a valid and sufficient notice for the termination of a month-to-month tenancy, satisfying legal requirements for eviction proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) has been filed against impugned Judgment dated 22.05.2018, whereby learned First Appellate Court has upheld the Judgment and Decree dated 19.01.2017 whereby learned Civil Judge, dismissed the Civil Suit of the Plaintiff / Respondent /Smt. Mithlesh Devi for Declaration, Mandatory and Permanent Injunction.

2. The plaintiff/Appellant had filed a Suit bearing No.427021/2016, seeking for Declaration, Mandatory and Permanent Injunction.

3. Brief facts, as stated in the Plaint, were that the Plaintiff was real and absolute owner of the Property bearing No. WZ-12B, Gulab Bagh Nawada, New Delhi. One Shop bearing No.3, on the Ground Floor of Suit Property, admeasuring 8.4 x 14 ft., (hereinafter referred to as ‘Suit Property’)was let out to Defendant / Appellant No.1, M/s Shyam Lal & Sons, vide Rent Agreement dated 01.01.2001, for shoe business.

4. Initially, the rent was agreed as Rs.1,000/-per month, but thereafter, rent was enhanced to Rs.1,460/- per month excluding water, electricity and other charges, payable by Appellant No.1 as per utility and meter readings.

5. Plaintiff asserted that she was a 70-year-old widow, living in a joint family, which included Late Sh. Kaushlender Singh, her elder son, Smt. Sarla, wife of elder son and two minor children; and family of Sh. Manoj Kumar, Plaintiff‟s younger son and his wife Smt. Pooja Chauhan and their two minor children.

6. Plaintiff submitted that both her daughters-in-law were jobless and not earning anything. Sh. Manoj Kumar, Plaintiff‟s younger son was working as a bus conductor in a private school. He was the only earning member in their family, whose income was not sufficient to meet the expenses of the entire family. Plaintiff was running a General Store in one of the Shops, admeasuring 10 x 14 ft., forming part of the suit property, and it was also not enough for meeting the expenses of the entire family.

7. Plaintiff thus, approached the Defendant to vacate the Suit Shop. However, Defendant avoided vacating the Shop, on one pretext or the other. Plaintiff asserted that after expiry of Rent Agreement dated 01.01.2001, the tenancy of Defendant became month to month.

8. She thus, filed the Suit for Possession, Permanent and Mandatory Injunction, to restrain the Defendant from creating third-party rights and further directions to the Defendant to pay all electricity, water and other charges.

9. Defendant, in Written Statement, took preliminary objection that the Suit was barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(hereinafter referred to as ‘DRC Act’). It was asserted that as Plaintiff was not the owner of the suit shop, and she had no right to file the present Suit.

10. It was further asserted that Suit was not maintainable, as tenancy of the Defendant was not terminable,having being created under an unregistered Rent Agreement, which required compulsory registration. No cause of action, has been disclosed in the Suit. Moreover, it was bad for non-joinder of all the persons, being members of the Firm / Defendant / M/s Shyam Lal and Sons.

11. On merits, it was claimed that no documents have been filed by the Plaintiff to establish her ownership in the Suit Property; rather she has suppressed