ASSOCHAM Vs. Y N BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 CPC is to the impugned judgment dated 4.9.2010, by which, the suit of the respondent/landlord/plaintiff was decreed on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

(2.) This appeal had come up for admission for the first time on 10.1.2011 when, it was not felt that this was a case where a notice could be issued, but since the learned senior counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellant stated that if notice is issued, the parties in the meanwhile, would settle the disputes, notice was issued. This aspect was again reiterated on 9.3.2011 when the matter was adjourned to 6.4.2011. On 6.4.2011 a request for adjournment on behalf of the appellant was vehemently opposed and it was stated that there was no possibility of compromise, however, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity was granted so that the parties could resolve the matter. No compromise has however been arrived at. The appeal has to be therefore considered and disposed of on merits.

(3.) The facts of the case are that the respondent is the owner/landlord of the premises bearing plot no. 1, Block No.1, 47, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi-110001. The subject property was taken on lease by the appellant/defendant/tenant vide an un-registered lease deed dated 10.7.1995. Vide this un-registered lease deed, the period of lease was mentioned as 27 years plus a period of 7 years, i.e. a total period of 34 years. Since the lease was unregistered and the tenancy was only a monthly tenancy, the respondent/plaintiff/landlord, terminated the tenancy vide notices dated 31.7.2007 and 1.8.2007 sent under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. A reply was sent on behalf of the appellant/tenant/defendant dated 30 th August, 2007 disputing the contents of the notice of the landlord and taking up a stand that the rent payable was annual rent, i.e. the tenancy was an annual tenancy. Since the respondent/plaintiff in the notice terminating tenancy also alleged breach of terms and the conditions of the lease deed, the appellant/defendant disputed the violation of the terms and conditions of the lease on the alleged grounds.