STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 9 July, 1991 of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby he decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession of the suit premises. The two plaintiffs are now respondents in the appeal.

(2.) The plaintiffs claiming to be owners and landlords of certain property being factory premises at G. T. Karnal Read Industrial Area, Delhi, filed 'a suit for possession against the defendant. They said that they had led out a portion of the factory premises consisting of basement, ground floor and mezzanine floor to the defendant on 20 September 1978 at a monthly rent of Rs. 6,500. The premises were let out for a period of 10 years. It was said that the tenancy was monthly tenancy in accordance with the English calendar month and starting from the first of every such month and ending on the last day of that very month. Then the plaintiffs said that though the tenancy of the defendant expired on 20 September 1988 but the defendant continued to occupy the premises and the plaintiffs, therefore, terminated the tenancy by notice dated 2 May 1989 sent by registered post and served upon the defendant on or about 10 May 1989. Since the defendant failed to vacate, the plaintiffs filed the suit valuing the suit for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 78,000 being the yearly rent of the premises. The plaintiffs also said that cause of action arose on the expiry of the period allowed in the notice dated 2 May 1989 terminting the tenancy of the defendant.

(3.) The defendant said that the tenancy was initially for a period of five years commencing from 20 September 1978 on which date the lease deed was executed and thereafter the defendant continued to be a tenant as rent upto October 1988 had already been received by the plaintiffs. The defendant also said that civil court had no jurisdiction in the matter as the amendment (Act 57 of 1988) to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which came into force on I December 1988, was prospective and did not apply to the tenancy created before that date. The defendant then said that the tenancy had not been terminated as per the provisions of law and further that the suit was malafide and had beer. filed with an intention to harass the defendant. It said payment of rent "upto December 1989 had been made by means of bankers cheques". The defendant also gave details of II cheque? as to how the rent had been paid after October 1988. Except for the one cheque which is dated 19 November 1988 all other cheques are between the dates first to fourth of every English calendar month. Last two cheques are both dated 3 August 1989. From these details it would appear that rent upto September 1989 had only been paid by means of bankers cheques. As to for what period rent had been paid it is not quite material as it had been the admitted case that cheques mentioned by the defendant had been sent back by the plaintiffs. The defendant had further pleaded that a lease deed was executed and deliveted to the plaintiffs and the lease for an initial period of five years reckoned from 20 September 1978 and after the expiry of five years the defendant was entitled to renew the lease deed for a further period of one year each on the same terms and conditions. It was stated that no period for lease was fixed and the lease was, thus, perpetual lease.