UMIKA AGENCIES Vs. SURESH TANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does the land with respect to which a decree for possession has been passed fall within the meaning of "premises" as defined in S. 2 (i) of Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act). This question assumes importance since it is not disputed that if what had been let out was actually "premises", S. 50 of the Act was a bar to the respondents obtaining the decree for possession.

(2.) On 24.9.1970 the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents entered into a lease agreement with the petitioner with regard to a piece of land. The lease was to commence "on the handing over the possession of the said land with the planned boundary wall around". Clause 3 of the agreement was :

(3.) Admittedly the petitioner, after having entered into possession of the land, raised construction as per the terms of the lease agreement. It is also not disputed that the agreement being for eleven months it was renewed from time to time. However, it is not the case of the present petitioner that after the expiry of the initial period of eleven months any fresh agreement had been entered into.