TRISHUL ENTERPRISES Vs. SHOBHA RANI MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petitions are directed against the order dated 7th December, 1998 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi in Suif No. 55/1997 dismissing the two applications one filed under Order 7 Rule II of the Code of Civil Procedure and the. other under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As both these petitions arise out of the same order passed by the trial Court and as the issues arising for consideration are overlapping and similar, I propose to dispose of both the petitions by this common order, As both the plaintiff as also the defendants filed separate revision petitions in this Court as petitioners, I propose to describe them as plaintiff and defendants in the present order in order to avoid any confusion.

(2.) Smt. Shobha Rani' Mehra filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Delhi which was registered as Suit No-55/1997. It was alleged in the plaint that the ground floor portion of property No-13/29-30, W.E.A., Karol Bagh, New Delhi was given on rent by the plaintiff to petitioner No. 1 and its parents, who are petitioners Nos. 2 to '5 in CMI Revision No.393/99, on 12.12.1983 @ Rs.4,500.00 per month: It was alleged in the plaint that a memorandum of understanding to the aforesaid effect was executed in between the parties and that w.e.f. 1.1.92 the rent was increased to Rs.4,950.00 . It was also stated that the tenancy between the parties was in accordance with the English Calendar month starting from first of each calendar month and thereby ending on the last day of each calendar month and that the property was let out for commercial purpose and that business of restaurant is being carried on therefrom. It is alleged that legal notice dated 25th January, 1995 was served on the defendants terminating their tenancy on the close of 8.2.1995 and accordingly the aforesaid suit.

(3.) The defendants including M/s. Trishul Enterprises contested the suit by filing a written statement 'admitting themselves to be tenant of the plaintiff. However, they challenged the right of the plaintiff to terminate the tenancy, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff under the lease deed has no right to terminate the tenancy as the tenancy is for an indefinite period and that the right, if any, to terminate the tenancy vests absolutely on the defendants alone. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance had' been placed by the defendants upon clauses 4, 5, 8 & 11 of the lease deed. The legality of the notice terminating the tenancy has also been challenged on the ground that it is issued in violation of the terms of the lease deed dated 12.12.1983. It is also pleaded that the tenancy cannot be terminated as the defendants are protected under Section 53 (A) of the Transfer of Properties Act because the defendants have done several acts including taking over possession of the premises and payment of Rs.2.50 lacs for improvement in the premises in terms of the lease deed in part performance of the contract.