(1.) The limits to which tenants, whose tenancies are terminated and who have no protection against eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, will go to frustrate the landlords in the latter's suits for possession, is amply demonstrated by the arguments which have been raised on behalf of the Petitioner in the present case. For the reasons given hereafter, this petition is not only misconceived, but also a gross abuse of the process of law and will have to be dealt with accordingly.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the Respondent/landlord is the owner of the premises G-3, Siddh Apartment, Plot No. 107, I.P. Extension, New Delhi. These premises were purchased by the Respondent/landlord from the earlier owner Shri S.L. Taneja. It is the admitted position that after transfer of the property in favour of the Respondent/landlord, an agreement of lease was entered into by the Petitioner with the Respondent/landlord, and in fact rent was also paid pursuant to the lease agreement.
(3.) Since the rate of rent was Rs. 6,000/- per month i.e. more than Rs. 3500/- per month, the Petitioner/tenant had no protection from the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. There was also no registered lease deed giving a specific period to the tenant to occupy the premises and consequently, the tenancy of the Petitioner was terminated by means of a notice dated 11th September, 2006 and where after the subject suit for possession, arrears of rent and the maintenance charges etc. was filed.