DAMAN KAUR SETHI Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I propose to decide this application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 Civil Procedure Code for passing of decree on the basis of alleged admissions made by the defendant.

(2.) The suit filed by the plaintiff is for possession, recovery of rent, recovery of mesne profit etc. The plaintiffs are the co-owners/landlords of the first and second floors of the suit property, namely, G-6, New Delhi South Extension Part-1 (Market), New Delhi-49. This suit property was let out to the defendant-Bank vide Lease Deed dated 27/1/89 which was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Delhi. The premises were let out from 14/2/89 at a monthly rent of Rs.25.50 per sq.ft. for a period of 5 years. The total area of the tenanted premises is 4167 sq.ft. Five years period expired on 13/2/94. There was a renewal clause in the Lease Deed as per which lease could be renewed at the option of the defendant-Bank for a further period of four years after enhancing the rent by 15%. After the expiry of the Lease Deed on 13/2/94, no further Lease Deed was executed or registered. However defendant-bank started paying rent at the enhanced rate i.e. at the rate of Rs.29.33 per sq.ft. per month.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs is that tenancy came to an end by efflux of time on 13/2/94. Thereafter, at the most, it became tenancy from month to month. Even if it is presumed that the lease stood extended by another four years, that four years period also came to an end by efflux of time on 13/2/98 and defendant became, on its own admission, monthly tenant w.e.f. 14/2/98 although no notice was required to be served on the defendant-Bank yet by way of abundant precaution plaintiffs served on defendant legal notice dated 28/5/99 through their advocates terminating monthly tenancy w.e.f. the mid-night of 13/7/99 and/or at such other date as the defendant considered the monthly tenancy was to end. Thus the present suit for possession was filed as the defendant Bank did not vacate the premises and rather filed suit against all the plaintiffs being Suit No.69/99 in the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi seeking permanent injunction relief against the defendants.