PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. VIRENDRA PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I must begin this judgment with a preface. Certain tenants, in this country, consider it an inherent right not to vacate the premises even after either expiry of tenancy period by efflux of time or after their tenancy is terminated by means of a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. All such tenants, including the present appellant-bank, feel that they ought to vacate the tenanted premises only when the Courts pass a decree for possession against them. Considering the facts of the case, it is high time that a strict message is sent to those tenants who illegally continue to occupy the tenanted premises by raising frivolous defences only and only to continue in possession of the tenanted premises. Such incorrigible tenants should be appropriately burdened with penal costs, and which aspect of costs, I will deal with later noting the recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Ramrameshwari Devi and Others v. Nirmala Devi and Others, 2011 8 SCC 249 in which it has been held that it is high time that actual and realistic costs be imposed in order to pre-empt and prevent dishonesty in litigation.

(2.) With this preface, let me turn to the present case. There are three requirements for decreeing a suit for possession, which is filed by a landlord against a tenant in Delhi. These requirements are: firstly, the existence of a relationship of a landlord and tenant, secondly rent being more than Rs. 3,500/- per month thereby taking the premises outside the protection of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and thirdly that the monthly tenancy is terminated by means of a legal notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as the tenancy of a fixed period has expired by efflux of time.

(3.) All the aforesaid three aspects are not disputed by the appellant/tenant/defendant. Last paid rent is Rs. 55,030/- per month after deduction of TDS. The only dispute which is raised is that after the tenancy period expired by efflux of time, the respondents/landlords had accepted the rent and therefore the tenancy relation was created afresh by virtue of provision of Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.