BHARTIA INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. RAJIV SALUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the order dated 7th May, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge on IA No.255/2002 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC allowing the application and passing a decree for possession of the suit premises in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) The relevant facts which may be noticed for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent herein has filed a suit for possession, damages and mesne profits against the defendant-appellants with the averments and allegations that he is the landlord/owner of the property No.119/89, (New Number being 89-A, Sainik Farm, New Delhi-110062) consisting of a plot of land with a farmhouse constructed thereon. The said property was let out by the plaintiff to the defendants vide registered lease deed dated 1st September, 1990 for a period of five years at a monthly rent of Rs.35,000/-. The lease was renewed for a period of two years w.e.f. 1st September, 1995 to 31st August, 1997. The lease was further renewed for a period of two years w.e.f. 1st September, 1997 to 31st August, 1999 by virtue of an unregistered lease deed at the enhanced rent of Rs.45,000/- per month. The lease was renewed for the third time for a period of two years again by means of an unregistered lease deed but on further enhanced rent of Rs.85,000/- per month. Thereafter, the tenancy came to an end by efflux of time. However, on the request of the appellants-tenants, the respondent-landlord verbally agreed to the extention of lease for a period of six months to enable the appellants-tenants to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property. The appellants-tenants, however, failed to vacate the suit property and though the tenancy stood terminated by efflux of time on 29th February, 2000, by way of abundant caution, the respondent-landlord served a quit notice dated 8th June, 2000 on the appellant-tenant and his Chairman, appellant No.2 on 10th June, 2000 and later filed the suit.

(3.) The appellants-tenants contested the suit by filing a joint written statement thereby not disputing the facts with regard to the appellants-tenants having leased in the suit property by means of a registered lease deed dated 1st September, 1990 as also the lease having been extended from time to time and lastly uptil 28th February, 2000 and the last rent payable being Rs.85,000/- per month. It was, however, denied that the tenancy of the appellants-tenants stood terminated w.e.f. 29th February, 2000 by means of the alleged notice dated 8th June, 2000 service of which is also denied. The suit was also sought to be resisted on the ground that the plaintiff had deliberately suppressed certain material facts about the suit property forming part of the revenue estate of village Khanpur, Delhi which was the subject matter of land acquisition. It was pleaded that after the publication of notification under Section 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Land Acquisition Collector having rendered his award No.17/87-88, any right, title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit property stood extinguished and the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the present suit. In any case, it was pleaded that the plaintiff being a bhumidar of the land in question underneath the suit property within the meaning of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, the lease was not created in accordance with Section 36 of the said Act. It was denied that the plaintiff was entitled to recovery of possession or damages as claimed by them.