C.M.(M) 651/2014 Page 1 of 8

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 651/2014

%

13^th November , 2014

W.N.GUJRAL

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.I.D.Tyagi with Mr.Milan Tyagi,

Advocates.

versus

SMT. KAVITA CHHIBBER

..... Respondent

Through:

Dr.Chaudhary Shamsuddin Khan with

Ms.Pushpa Chibger, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

impugns the order of the trial court dated 10.5.2014 by which the trial court

has rejected an application under Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in a suit for

possession. The subject suit for possession was filed by the

petitioner/plaintiff stating that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant

2014:DHC:6018

C.M.(M) 651/2014 Page 2 of 8

between the parties, rate of rent is more than Rs.3,500/- per month that is

Rs.10,000/- per month, and the monthly tenancy was terminated by a legal

notice dated 4.10.2013 sent under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property

Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) .

2. At the outset, I may note that both the parties to this case are

advocates. Certain personal relationships are alleged between the parties as

per the written statement, however, I need not dwell on the same except

bringing on record the fact, and which fact has also been noticed by the trial

court, that the written statement runs into about 50 pages and in these 50

pages the respondent/tenant has raised about 115 paragraphs as preliminary

objections and submissions. Of course none of these aspects will be relevant

because all that has to be seen is the existence of relationship between the

parties as a landlord and tenant and the rate of rent being more than 3,500/-

per month to be taken with the fact that there is termination of monthly

tenancy by serving the notice under Section 106 of the Act.

3. Before

me

the

first

argument

urged

by

the

respondent/defendant/tenant is that the notices issued for termination of

tenancy

were

contradictory

and

therefore

tenancy

of

the

respondent/defendant is not terminated. There is also a second submission

2014:DHC:6018

C.M.(M) 651/2014 Page 3 of 8

which was raised on behalf of the respondent/defendant/tenant at the stage of

dictation of the judgment that there is a dispute as to what area was occupied

by the respondent/defendant/tenant and this aspect raises a triable issue.

4. In my opinion the suit for possession has to be decreed as there is no

dispute as per the pleadings with regard to the existence of relationship of

landlord and tenant between the parties. This aspect becomes very clear on

account of earlier civil suit proceedings which were filed by the

respondent/defendant in which the respondent alleged existence of tenancy

of however, a larger area being one bed room, drawing room, kitchen,

bathroom and a garage on the ground floor of the property and one room,

one bathroom including some covered and open space in first floor of the

property no. 106, Chander Lok Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi, and the

petitioner/plaintiff in his written statement admitted to the existence of the

alleged tenancy though the said tenancy was not for the larger area as

alleged by the respondent/defendant in her earlier suit for injunction but was

for a lesser area being one room with common kitchen of property no.106,

Chander Lok Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi.

2014:DHC:6018

C.M.(M) 651/2014