ASHWANI BHATIA Vs. SURESH RASTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 22.2.2012 decreeing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs/landlords for possession of the suit/tenanted premises on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The facts of the case are that the appellant/defendant took on rent the suit premises being House No. 97, second floor, Old Gupta Colony, Delhi-110009 from the respondents/plaintiffs/landlords under a registered rent agreement dated 13.8.2010. The period of tenancy was from 6.8.2010 to 5.7.2011 and the rate of rent was Rs. 14,200/- per month. The respondents/landlords claimed that the appellant/defendant paid rent only for two months i.e. August, 2010 and September, 2010 and thereafter failed to pay the rent as also the water charges. The respondent/plaintiff thereafter served a legal notice dated 8.1.2011 terminating the tenancy and to which the appellant/defendant sent a reply dated 5.2.2011. In the reply, it was claimed that the rent was paid and therefore the notice was illegal.

(2.) In the city of Delhi, the tenanted premises whose rent is more than Rs. 3,500/- per month, and the tenancy is a monthly tenancy, then such tenancy can be terminated by means of a legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In case of fixed period tenancies, once the lease period under a registered lease deed expires, the tenancy expires by efflux of time, and there is no need even of terminating such tenancies by serving a notice under Section 106 of the Act.

(3.) In the present case, relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted and the rate of rent is also admitted to be more than Rs. 3,500/- i.e. Rs. 14,200/- per month. Dehors the issue of termination of tenancy, the period of lease has also expired on 5.7.2011. I have in the recent judgment reported as M/s.Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. vs. M/s. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) & Anr., 2011 183 DLT 712 held that even if it is not proved that a legal notice was served prior to filing of the suit, service of summons of the suit can be taken as a notice under Section 106 of the Act. I have held that Court should take a pragmatic view in view of the legislative intendment as demonstrated by Act 3 of 2003, amending Section 106 of the Act. An SLP against the said judgment being SLP No. 15740/2011 has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 7.7.2011.