SUBHASH CHANDER BASRA Vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by the owner landlord is directed against the order dated 8-5-1989 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the appeal of respondent No. 2 was allowed and as a result the eviction petition filed by the petitioner which had been decreed by the Rent Controller stood dismissed.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of premises No. 48/8, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The 1st floor of (be said premises was let out by the petitioner to respondent No. I, M/s. Tata Consultancy Services, hereinafter called the respondent company, on 16-12-1979 by a duly executed lease agreement dated 6 12-1979 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1200.00 . The lease agreement provided that the lease could be terminated on one month's notice and that the respondent company had the option to allot the flat to any of its employees. Admitted the premiles were occupied by Shri A.R. Tandon, an employee of the respondent company. The said Shri A R. Tandon resigned his job and as a result was relieved on 30-9-1981. The respondent company by their letter dated 29-9-1981 informed the petitioner that the respondent company would not be requiring the flat, that is, the permises in dispute any more and hence as per the lease agreement between the parties the petitioner should treat the said letter as one Month's notice for vacation of the premises. However, by a subsequent letter dated 6-10-1981 the respondent company while referring to its earlier letter dated 29-9-1981 informed the petitioner that the earlier letter should be treated as cancelled and they would continue to retain the premises for being occupied by another officer. The petitioner, however, declined to accept The second letter and intimated that he had already arranged to induct another tenant. Again by another letter dated 21-10-1981 the respondent company reiterated its letter dated 6-101981 and also remitted the rent for the month of October 1981. This letter was accepted by the petitioner and the petitioner intimated to the respondent company that in future they should give clear one month's notice in case of vacating the premises. The petitioner also informed that his letter dated 14-10-1981 may be treated as cancelled. Consequently the respondent company continued to be a tenant.

(3.) It appears that after having resigned the job with the reapondent company Shri A.R. Tandon left for some foreign country and his brother, namely, Shri P.R. Tandon, respondent No. 2 herein, continued to remain in possession of the premises. Since be did not vacate the premises and informed the respondent company that he had become a direct tenant of the petitioner the respondent company then wanted a clarification from the petitioner. The petitioner clarified the position by stating that be had never taken Sbri P.R. Tandon as a tenant and the respondent company continued to be the tenant and it was for the respondent company to get vacant possession of the premises from unauthorised possession of Shri P.R. Tandon. The respondent company continued to pay the rent of the premises till January 1982 but thereafter they stopped making any payment of rent.