ASHA NARANG SPAAK Vs. HAFCO BRASS USA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have filed the present suit, inter alia, praying for a decree of possession of ground floor of A-27, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi with mesne profit with effect from 1st January, 2012 till the actual physical possession of the premises is delivered along with the costs.

(2.) By way of present application the plaintiffs pray for passing of a preliminary decree of possession of the demised premises consisting of one dining room, three bed rooms with attached bath rooms, a kitchen, a servant quarter and front lawn from the defendants on the basis of admissions made by the defendants under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiffs contends that the defendants in the written statement have admitted that the premises was given on rent, the suit for recovery of possession is not protected under the provisions of Rent Control Act and the landlord tenant relationship having been severed by notice served by the plaintiffs under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (in short the T.P. Act), the plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment and decree for possession. The pleas of the defendant even if accepted do not affect the entitlement of the plaintiffs for possession of the premises as held in M/s. Payal Vision Ltd. Vs. Radhika Choudhary 2012 (9) SCALE 105. Reliance is also placed on Punjab National Bank Vs. Sh. Virendra Prakash & Anr. 2012 V AD (DELHI) 373 to contend that existence of relationship of landlord tenant, factum of premises not having protection of Delhi Rent Control Act and the factum that tenancy was terminated by service of legal notice not being disputed in the written statement, the decree is required to be passed in favour of the landlord. Even de-hors the issue of termination of tenancy, if the period of lease expires, the tenant is liable to vacate the premises. Reference is made to Ashwani Bhatia (Sh.) Vs. Sh. Suresh Rastogi & Anr. 2012 IV AD (DELHI) 315.