BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED Vs. VIKRAM SINGH MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether or not learned Single Judge in the impugned order passed on 19.12.2000 has correctly exercised discretion by allowing plaintiffs/respondents to amend the plaint. This is the short question arising for determination in this appeal preferred by the defendant.

(2.) On 12.11.1997 plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant claiming a decree for possession of property known as No. 7/25, Nazafgarh Road, Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and for recovery of Rs. 6 lakhs towards arrears of damages @ Rs. 2 lakhs per month w.e.f. 12.8.1997 and for future damages @ Rs.2 lakhs per month from the date of institution of the suit till delivery of possession alongwith the interest on damages @ 12% p.a. with effect from the date of the institution of the suit.

(3.) The suit was instituted alleging that the defendant was inducted,on the land as a lessee through agreement dated 12.1.1965 on a monthly rental of Rs.3,850.00. Lease initially was for a period of three years which expired by efflux of time on 11.11.1968. Defendant, however, continued to occupy premises as a tenant from month to month on same terms and conditions. No fresh lease was executed or created in favour of defendant after 1968. Though there was no necessity to terminate the lease which had expired by efflux of lime, a notice was served on 28.4.1991 terminating tenancy of defendant. Status of defendant was that of astatutory tenant after expiry of tenancy by efflux of time and became as an unauthorised occupant after termination of lease. Therefore, defendant was liable to pay damages @ Rs.l lakh per month. Defendant failed to vacate premises. Another notice dated 8.8.1997 was served on the defendant once again calling upon him defendant to vacate premises and pay past arrears of damages @ Rs. 1 lakh per month and further to pay damages @ Rs. 2 lakhs per month w.e.f. 12.8.1997. Request made through this notice was also not complied with. Therefore, suit was filed for the aforementioned reliefs stating that cause of action had arisen to the plaintiffs against defendant on 12.11.1965 when the property was let out; on expiry of three years when the lease expired by efflux of time; on 29.4.1991 and 5,8.1997 when notices were served upon the defendant.