DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED Vs. SUNIL PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order passed on 25.7.2000 by Shri B.S. Chaudhary, Additional District Judge, Delhi disposing of an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "Criminal Procedure Code."). While allowing the said application the trial Court proceeded to dispose of the entire suit and pass a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff/respondent against the defendant/appellant allowing two months time to the defendant/appellant to hand over physical and vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff along with a decree for arrears of mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 12,000.00 per month with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the arrears.

(2.) Facts in brief are that a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant on 8.9.1997 inter alia alleging that the entire first and second floor portion besides garage on the ground floor and common use of passage for the necessary facilities was let out exclusively for residential requirement of appellant's Executives in August, 1995 on a monthly rent of Rs. 8,000.00 including property tax but excluding all other charges. The terms were reduced into writing on 12.11.1995, which was duly registered. The tenancy thus commenced on 1.9.1995 and was to expire on 31.8.1997. After expiry the defendant was required to hand over peaceful possession since the premises were required by the appellants for their own use and occupation and as the lease had also come to an end by efflux of time. On failure of the defendant to vacate, suit was filed claiming decree for possession and mesne profits. Defendant contested the suit and filed written statement wherein number of legal objections were raised. It was inter alia pleaded that the plaintiffs have no right to sue since it was obligatory on their part to renew the lease. As per the terms the lease was renewal at the option of the defendant. The defendant still continues to be the contractual tenant in view of the fact that the defendant had duly exercised its option to extend the lease initially for a period of two years. In view of the option having been exercised, the plaintiffs were obliged to execute a formal lease deed in favour of the defendant for a period Upto 31.8.1999 and thereafter till 2007. since lease was subsisting, there was no question of the defendant surrendering the possession. Entitlement of the plaintiff to claim mesne profit was also disputed.

(3.) Earlier the same Additional District Judge after hearing the defendant's application under Order 12 Rule 6 Criminal Procedure Code. had proceeded to pass a decree in similar terms, which was set aside in appeal on 21.12.1999 (RFA No. 303/99). While setting aside the decree a direction was issued to decide all pending applications including the application under Order 12 Rule 6 and Order 6 Rule 17 Criminal Procedure Code. Now by a fresh order the applications have been decided again after hearing learned counsel for the defendant/appellant. On reference to the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court concluded that on admitted facts the tenancy came to an end on 31.8.1995 by efflux of time. Since the tenancy had expired and rent of the premises was more than Rs. 3,500.00 the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for possession. On the plea of renewal of tenancy, it was held that in the absence of a registered lease deed executed for a fresh period, benefit could not be taken by the defendant of the alleged verbal assurance.