VIKRAM SINGH MEHTA Vs. BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of plaintiffs' application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for short ('Civil Procedure Code'). The question which arises for consideration is whether in a suit for eviction the plaintiff can be permitted to plead a fresh notice to quit served on the defendant after institution of the suit particularly when in the written statement tenant had pleaded that the suit is liable to fail for want of proper notice ?

(2.) Brief facts necessary for disposal of the application are: that plaintiffs filed the suit for possession and damages / mesne profits alleging therein that they are the owner of premises bearing No. 7/25, Najafgarh Road, Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi (for short 'suit premises'). The defendant company was inducted as the tenant in suit premises vide lease agreement dated 12.11.1965 on a monthly rent of Rs.3,850.00, which was enhanced toRs.5,000.00w.e.f. 1.10.1990; the lease was initially for a period of three years which expired on 11.11.1968, by efflux of time. However, the defendant continued to occupy suit premises on same terms and conditions and no fresh lease was executed. The plaintiffs served notices dated 29.4.1991 and 8.8.1997, on the defendant terminating its tenancy; the defendant sent replies dated 14.8.1991 and 22.8.1997 to the said notices repudiating contents. The plaintiffs have also claimed damages/mesne profits for each month at different rates i.e., @ Rs. 1,00,000.00 w.e.f. 12.11.1991; @ Rs. 2,00,000.00 w.e.f. 12.8.1997 and @ Rs. 6,00,000.00 w.e.f. the date of filing of the suit.

(3.) The defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the suit inter-alia, pleading that the suit is based on illegal and invalid notices is not maintainable; that the plaintiffs by their conduct had waived of the said notices purporting to terminate their tenancy; the notices were invalid since lease was for manufacturing purposes and the notices served were not in accordance with provisions of Sections 106,107 and 113 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ("T.P. Act"), that the stand taken by the plaintiffs, in the present suit is contradictory to the stand taken by them in their earlier notices, wherein it was claimed that the defendant's tenancy was from year to year basis being for manufacturing purposes. It is further pleaded that the lease document creating lease for a period of three years was required to be compulsorily registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. It being an unregistered document, is not admissible in evidence. It is also pleaded that the rent payable by the defendant to the plaintiff was attached by the municipal Authorities and that the defendant had been depositing the rent with municipal Authorities with the consent and under information to the plaintiffs. Lastly, it is pleaded that the defendant continues to be legal tenant, as per the oral agreement between the parties, and that the suit is filed with ulterior motives to claim enhanced rent or forcing the defendant to purchase the suit premises at higher rates.