ABHINAV OUTSOURCING PVT LTD Vs. SUNITA SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 is to the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 28.9.2011 by which judgment the Trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent/landlord/plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. In order to pass a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC in suits such as the present the following aspects are required to exist:-

(2.) In the present case, there is no dispute that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. There is also no dispute that the rate of rent is more than Rs.3,500/- per month; the rate of rent being Rs.21,150/- per month when the lease was determined by the notice dated 25.10.2007 with effect from 31.1.2008, and that the notice terminating tenancy was, in fact, duly received by the appellant/defendant/tenant.

(3.) There are two main issues which have been argued by the appellant before this Court. The first issue was that the registered lease in question entitled the appellant/tenant on exercising an option to continue in the premises for a total period of 3years + 3 years +3 years with effect from 1.11.2004 and the first option of three years till 31.10.2010 having been exercised and therefore the suit for possession could not have been filed. The second point which is in fact incidental to the first point is that after exercise of the option, the appellant has paid enhanced rent and consequently there arises a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties for an additional period of 3 years which would have only expired on 31.10.2010, and therefore, the suit could not have been filed before 31.10.2010. Reliance is placed on behalf of the appellant on two judgments. The first judgment is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Caltex (India) Ltd. vs. Bhagwan Devi Marodia, 1969 AIR(SC) 405and the second judgment is the judgment in the case of Smt. Sneh Vasih & Anr. Vs. Filatex India Ltd., 2002 95 DLT 373. The judgment in the case of Caltex is relied for the proposition that once an option is exercised, then, a person contractually is entitled to continue in possession of the tenanted premises. The decision in the case of Smt. Sneh Vasih is relied for the proposition that in view of the facts such as the present, the Courts should not exercise its discretion under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.