BPL TRAVELS LTD Vs. SH. DAVINDER VACHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 7.5.2011 which has decreed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs/landlords against the appellant/ company/defendant/tenant for possession and mesne profits.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the appellant/company took on rent the premises being Flat no.710, Indraprakash Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi admeasuring 595 square feet from the respondents vide lease deed dated 16.12.2005 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 at monthly rent of Rs.22,000.00 per month. Since the appellant/tenant failed to pay the rent w.e.f. 1.4.2007, the respondents/plaintiffs served a legal notice terminating the tenancy dated 7.10.2007 w.e.f. 31.10.2007. Since the appellant/company/tenant failed to vacate the premises, the subject suit for possession and mesne profits came to be filed.

(3.) SO far as the relationship of landlord and tenant is concerned, the same is not disputed. So far as the rate of rent is concerned whereas the appellant stated the rate of rent @ Rs.11,000.00 per month, the respondents stated that the rent is Rs.22,000.00 per month. This monthly rent @ Rs.11,000.00 per month of the premises also in excess of Rs.3,500.00 per month and thus the premises would be outside the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. So far as the service of notice is concerned, the Trial Court has noted that the notice was served at the residential addresses of the Directors of the appellant/company and therefore the tenancy has been validly terminated. In any case I have had an occasion to consider the aspect of the requirement of service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in the case of M/s. Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. vs. M/s. Jasbir Singh Chaddha (HUF) & Anr. RFA 179/2011 decided on 25.3.2011. In the judgment of M/s. Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. (supra) I have held that the service of summons in the suit can be taken as a service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 read with Order 7 Rule 7 CPC. I have also held that a copy of the notice terminating tenancy is served as a document upon the defendant and again due to which it can be said that the notice terminating tenancy has been served upon the tenant again read with Order 7 Rule 7 CPC. I have also referred to the intendment of the legislature in enacting Act 3 of 2003 bringing about the amendment in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to do away with the technical defences of inadequacies in service of notice of terminating tenancy as long as a period of 15 days expires prior to filing of the suit. An SLP against the said judgment being SLP No.15740/2011 has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 7.7.2011.