HOLIDAY HOME Vs. R.P.KAPUR HUF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant, who was a tenant of premises no. A-2/11, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as the premises in suit?) of the respondent herein, against the judgment and decree dated 18th July, 2007 whereby the suit filed by the respondent-landlord for possession, damages/mesne profits etc. in respect of the suit premises had been decreed.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff(hereinafter to be referred as the plaintiff?) had filed a suit for recovery of possession, damages, mesne profits for unauthorized use and occupation of the premises in suit against the appellant(hereinafter to be referred as the defendant?), inter-alia, on the allegations that the premises in suit were let out to the defendant for lodging purposes only but the defendant had not only started using the same for non-residential purposes, which was against the terms of the perpetual lease executed in favour of the plaintiff by the President of India, but had also illegally sub-let a portion of the premises in suit to Abacus Computer for commercial purposes and substantial damages to the premises had also been caused. It was also pleaded that even though the contractual tenancy of the defendant had expired by efflux of time in the year 1983 still it terminated the tenancy of the defendant vide notice dated 28th February, 1995 whereby the defendant was called upon to vacate the premises in the suit on the expiry of the 30th April, 1995. Since the defendant did not comply with that notice the plaintiff had to approach the Court of law and the suit was filed on 04-08-95 for the relief of possession etc. In the plaint, it was also claimed by the plaintiff that since the defendant had caused substantial damage to the premises in suit it was also liable to restore the premises to its original condition in which the same were let out to it. A decree of permanent injunction was also prayed for restraining the defendant from parting with the possession of the premises in suit to some third party.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit, inter-alia, on the grounds that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit since it was not the owner of the premises in suit and that in any case the suit for possession could not be decreed since no notice of termination of the defendant?s tenancy had been served upon it. It was denied that the premises in suit had been sub-let to anyone or that the same were being misused. Violation of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction was also challenged. The defendant had also pleaded that it had been permitted by the plaintiff to use the premises in suit for the purpose for which it was being used, namely, for running a lodging house and not only that, the plaintiff had also permitted the defendant to spend huge money for carrying out improvements in the premises for making it fit for running a lodging house and accordingly the defendant had spent more than ' 25 lacs in carrying out additions and alterations and improvements more than 15 years back and further that it had been agreed between the parties that the defendant shall not be evicted from the premises in suit for any reason whatsoever unless the plaintiff would pay to the defendant the said amount which had been spent by it on additions, alterations and improvements. Regarding the relief of mesne profits it was prayed that a preliminary decree may be passed as provided in law(Order XX Rule 12 CPC) and thereafter a final decree should be passed.