ROXY ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ARUN RAINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first page of the lease deed dated 29.10.80 (Ex. Public Witness f/1) in respect of premises in question shows that it has been entered into between Lessor, Mrs. Aruna Raina-respondent No. 1 and the lessee M/s. Roxy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.-petitioner herein. Last page of the deed mentions the name of M/s Roxy Steel Wires Pvt. Ltd, respondent No. 2 as lessee and has been signed by its M.D The rate of rent stipulated is Rs. 2.443. 20 p.m. One of the terms of the lease deed stipulates that the lessee shall be entitled to renew the initial lease after every three years with an increase of 15% in the rent over the last rent paid and other terms and conditions would remain the same. A registered notice dated 11.3.86 was sent by Landlady to respondent No. 2, inter-alia, alleging that respondent No. 2 is liable to eviction as it is a contumacious defaulter in payment of rent and was in arrears since Oct. 1985 and in respect thereof demand for payment was made. A copy of the notice was also sent to the petitioner stating that in case the petitioner treats itself to be the tenant it should comply with the requirements of the notice.

(2.) Petitioner and respondent 2 are sister concerns. The eviction petition was filed by respondent 1 against respondent 2 and the petitioner on ground of non payment of rent u/S. 14(l)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act,) and on certain other grounds. It has been, inter-alia, pleaded in the eviction petition that the tenants had not paid arrears of rent from October 1985 to July 1986 despite notice dated ll th March, 1986 and that a sum of Rs. 28.906.80p calculated at the rate of Rs. 2809.68 was due as rent from the tenants for the period from 1st October 1985 to 31st July 1986. The landlady stated in the eviction petition that the lease deed is between her and respondent No. 2 but in the body of the lease the name of the lessee has been given as that of the petitioner as she did not notice this Discrepancy at the time of execution of the lease deed. The landlady prayed that in the event of either of the said two companies being held as tenants the notice regarding non payment of rent and termination of tenancy had been served on both and thus both the respondents in the eviction petition were liable to vacate the premises as neither had paid the arrears of rent. Para 3(b) of the eviction petition which requires a landlord to state the name and address of the tenant/tenants, the names of both the companies have been mentioned as tenants.

(3.) A joint W/S. was filed by the petitioner and respondent 2, inter-alia, pleading that rent upto June, 1986 had already been paid to the landlady. It was further pleaded that the tenants had been served an attachment order by M.C.D. vide letter dated 7.3.86 and thus the landlady was not entitled to claim any rent till the attachment subsists. Para 3 (b) of the, eviction petition was not denied as it was stated that the said para needs no reply. It was also pleaded that the clause of 15% increase of rent was illegal. Regarding notice dated 11.3.86 the tenants pleaded that "Para 18 (b) is wrong and denied that any such notice was served, as alleged, much less a valid notice."