VANITA VOHRA Vs. VOITH PAPER FABRICS INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.11.1998 of the trial Court whereby the suit of the appellant-plaintiff for possession and mesne profits with respect to the premises C-715 New Friends Colony, New Delhi, was dismissed. I may note that the premises in question has already been vacated by the respondent, erstwhile tenant on 1.4.1998 and therefore, I only have to look at the issue of awarding of mesne profits claimed by the appellant-plaintiff, the relief of which was dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree.

(2.) THE sole ground for dismissing the suit for possession and consequently for mesne profits was that the legal notice terminating the tenancy dated 21.2.1994, Ex.PW1/5 did not validly terminate the contract of tenancy. THE reason why it was held that the tenancy was not validly terminated was on account of the fact that the appellant-landlord was bound to have sent alongwith the notice of termination of tenancy, the deposit of Rs.15 lacs which the appellant had received from the respondent at the time of letting out of the property.

(3.) I am afraid, I am completely unable to agree with the reasoning as given in para 7 of the impugned judgment. A reference to para 3 of the agreement of security deposit which is reproduced above, shows that the deposit of Rs.15 lakhs was payable on the handing over of the physical vacant possession of the property to the landlord. It is not possible to read this clause as has been done by the trial Court that such a clause should be interpreted to mean that alongwith the notice of termination of tenancy the amount of deposit of Rs.15 lakhs should have been sent. This clause does not require sending of the amount of Rs.15 lakhs alongwith notice of termination of tenancy but payment of such amount is simultaneous to the receiving of vacant possession by the lessor.