LAWS(DLH)-2010-10-149

BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. HILL ELLIOTT AND CO LTD

Decided On October 26, 2010
BHUPINDER SINGH. Appellant
V/S
HILL ELLIOTT AND CO. LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the Plaintiff's application under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), IA 9073/2010. In this order, the Plaintiff will be referred to as such; the first Defendant would be referred to as "Hill Elliott".

(2.) The suit averments briefly are that the Plaintiff is concededly the owner of the property being S-323 Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, let out the ground floor, first floor, garage with servant quarter and lawn attached to the said construction (hereafter referred to as the "suit property") to Hill Elliott through a registered lease deed dated 16.10.1982. The tenure of the lease was to expire on 12.10.1986. It is claimed that since no registered lease deed was executed thereafter, Hill Elliott's status became one of monthly tenant holding over and paying '7,000/- for use and occupation of the premises. The Plaintiff did not wish to continue Hill Elliott as his tenant and issued a notice dated 09.08.2008 terminating the arrangement, which automatically ended on 12.09.2008. It is alleged that the notice was sent by various modes such as registered AD post and other modes of service. The Plaintiff claims decree for possession and manse profits at the rate of '4, 00,000/- per month with effect from 13.09.2008. The Plaintiff also claims a decree for '8.14 lakhs towards alleged damages/manse profits for the period up to 13.09.2008.

(3.) Hill Elliott, in its written statement mentions about a previous suit by the Plaintiff before the Civil Court being No. 358/1993 (subsequently re-numbered as Suit No. 1195/2008 and hereafter referred as "the Plaintiff's previous suit"), where he sought for eviction of another person, from the suit property, i.e. Ashok Jhaharia (hereafter referred to as "AJ"), claiming that he was the tenant of the suit property. It is submitted that the suit was withdrawn unconditionally without obtaining leave. Hill Elliott disputes that the notice for termination of tenancy was ever served upon it.