$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision: 07.04.2021

+

RFA 226/2020 & CM APPL. 20247/2020 (Stay)

ASHOK KUMAR BAGGA

.... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Praveen Suri, Advocate .

versus

RAJVINDER KAUR

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Avtar Singh, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JYOTI SINGH, J.

1.

This Regular First Appeal is preferred by the Appellant herein

against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2020, passed in CS No.

137/2018 by the learned Trial Court vide which the Trial Court has

decreed the suit for possession filed by the Respondent on an Application

under Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘CPC’) filed by her.

2.

Appellant herein was the sole Defendant before the Trial Court and

the Respondent herein was the Plaintiff. For the sake of convenience

parties are referred to as Appellant and Respondent as per their status in

this Court.

3.

Facts of the present case are in a narrow compass and are

encapsulated as follows:

a. Respondent filed a suit against the Appellant for possession,

recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits qua the suit property

being shop No. 4, Ground Floor, J-5/121, Rajouri Garden, New

Delhi-110027 (hereinafter referred to as suit property).

b. Respondent premised the suit on the landlord-tenant relationship

between the parties. It was pleaded that Respondent had let out the

suit property to the Appellant in the year 2012 on the basis of a

registered Lease Agreement executed between the parties on

10.10.2012 for a period of two years. The second registered Lease

Agreement was executed on 10.10.2014, for a period of one year.

The third and last Agreement was executed on 12.10.2015 for a

period of 2 years at an enhanced monthly rent of Rs. 16,800/-, for

the first year and Rs. 17,500/- for the second year.

c. Under the Agreement it was specifically agreed between the parties

that if after the expiry of the tenancy period, the tenancy was

extended for another period, with the mutual consent, then the

monthly rent will be increased @ 5% and fresh Agreement will be

signed by both the parties. This was translated in Clause 27(A) of

the Lease Agreement.

d. It was the case of the Respondent that the tenancy came to an end

by efflux of time on 10.10.2017, but Appellant failed to vacate the

suit property.

e. Respondent further pleaded that Appellant sent a notice dated

26.09.2017, requesting the Respondent to extend the Lease for

another two years. Respondent vide reply dated 09.10.2017

responded to the said notice refusing to extend the lease and

instead called upon the Appellant to vacate the suit premises.

f. It was further averred that instead of vacating the suit premises,

Appellant started unilaterally depositing the increased rent, through

a cheque @ Rs. 18,375/- per month, in the bank account of the

Respondent, without the consent and knowledge of the Respondent.

g. Finding no alternative, Respondent sent a legal notice dated

06.12.2017 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,

1882 to the Appellant calling upon him to vacate the suit property,

within 15 days of receipt of notice and pay damages @ Rs. 1,000/-

per day with effect from 11.10.2017 till handing over of possession.

Notice was duly served upon the Appellant and was responded to

by reply dated 02.01.2018.

h. In reply, Appellant took a stand that lease had been extended, albeit

orally, for a further period of two years from 10.10.2017 and also

referred to six post-dated cheques, sent by him for a sum of

Rs.18,375/- each, towards the rent.

i. Respondent pleaded that lease had not been extended after the last

Lease Agreement executed on 12.10.2015 for a period of two years

and the Respondent never accepted the rent. Appellant had been

depositing the cheques in the bank account on his own accord,

which did not amount to extending the lease of the suit premises, as

the deposits were without the consent and knowledge of the

Respondent. Since Appellant did not vacate t