SINGER INDIA LIMITED Vs. AMITA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 23rd December, 1998 passed by Sh. P.S. Teji, Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Suit No. 11/95. By the said judgment and decree, suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein for recovery of possession of suit premises bearing Flat Nos. 331-B, 331-C and 331-D, third floor, 6, Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi having a total area of 495 sq. feet has been decreed.

(2.) This suit came to be filed by the plaintiff/respondent against defendant/ appellant in the following factual background.

(3.) The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff and in respect of the suit property as mentioned above on monthly rent of Rs. 14,304.00. The plaintiff had let out the premises to the M/s. Indian Shaving Machine Company Ltd. now known as Singer India Ltd. on 1st September, 1985. The tenancy of the defendant was monthly commencing from 1st day of every English calendar month and ending with last date of the same month. The plaintiff by means of notice dated 9th December, 1994 terminated the tenancy of the defendant and called upon the defendant to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession by the end of 31st January, 1995 the notice was duly served on the defendant and the defendant sent the reply dated 16th January, 1995 duly received by the plaintiff. The defendant did not vacate the premises on the ground that the tenancy of the defendant stood renewed every three years on the escalations of rent by 15 per cent without having any registered lease deed in his favour. The lease deed was neither stamped nor registered. The defendant sent rent for the month of February, 1995 and the same was not accepted by the plaintiff. Consequently the suit was filed by the plaintiff for possession of the suit premises. The defendant filed written statement to the plaint taking preliminary objection to the effect that the tenancy of the defendant is protected under the provision of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as "TP Act"). Another objection taken was that suit was liable to be stayed as the defendant had already instituted a suit being Suit No. 321/95 in which the matter in issue was directly and substantially the same. The suit was instituted prior to the present suit. On merit the defendant submitted that the defendant company was a. registered company under the Companies Act and in order to permanently shift its registered office at Delhi, the present accommodation was taken for the period of three years and after the expiry of every three years on enhancing the existing rent by 15 per cent it got the lease extended for further three years. The defendant was, therefore, entitled to remain in possession and continued on the same terms and conditions mentioned in the original lease deed executed in the year 1985.