KAMAL SAROJ MAHAJAN Vs. CHARANJIT LAL MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein filed a suit for possession/ ejectment, arrears of rent and damages/mesne profit against the defendants/ respondents alleging therein that premises in question were let out to the respondents/defendants jointly on monthly rental of Rs. 2500/- vide agreement dated 4.9.77. The tenancy commenced on 1.10.77. Rent was increased from time to time @ 10%. For the period from 1.9.98 to 31.8.2001, defendants/respondents paid rent @ 3327/- per month. Then on 28.7.2001 plaintiff served a legal notice on the defendant under section 6-A read with section 8 of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the "Act" ) notifying thereby that the rent will be increased by 10% with effect from 1.9.2001. The said legal notice was duly served on the defendants/ respondents. Since the monthly rent of the demised premises becomes Rs. 3659/- with effect from 1.9.2001 which is in excess of Rs. 3500/-, the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act cease to be applicable to the demised premises. The plaintiff/ petitioner then terminated the tenancy of the defendants vide separate legal notice dated 8.10.2001 duly served on the defendants by registered A.D post on 11.10.2001. Plaintiff thereupon filed a suit for recovery of possession as well as for recovery of arrears of rent for the month September-October 2001 and pendente lite and future and mesne profit/ damages @ Rs. 40,000/-.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendants by filing separate written statements wherein they took identical stand. The existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was admitted. It was also admitted that tenancy commenced on 1.10.77 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2500/- under rent note dated 4.9.77. The fact that the rent was increased from time to time by serving notice under section 6A of DRC Act is also not denied. The service of notice dated 28.7.2001 under section 6-A of the Act and notice dated 8.10.2001 under section 106 TP Act was also not denied. The main defence set up by the defendants was that it was not a joint tenancy. Rather their tenancies were separate, independent, distinct and thus they were individually liable to pay rent @ 625/- per month initially. In their written statements defendants made specific reference to the plaintiffs letters dated 3.8.92 and 17.9.92 which according to the defendant support their version that they were separate independent, distinct tenants. It is pleaded in para 5 of the written statement that vide her letter dated 17.9.92 plaintiff/ petitioner had refused to accept the cheque for Rs. 42,000/- as it was tendered only on behalf of one of the defendants. But later on plaintiff accepted cheque No. 134831 dated 24.3.94 for Rs. 60,000/- which was tendered on behalf of all four defendants and this, according to the defendants indicates that the plaintiff herself treated the defendants as separate tenants. According to the defendants their individual share of rent never reached the figure of Rs. 3500/-. So the question of non-applicability of provisions of DRC Act does not arise. Defendants have not specifically disputed that they are liable to pay arrears of rent for the month of September-October 2001 but denied liability to pay any damages/ mesne profit. The thrust of defendants' contention is that they were separate, individual tenant and their individual rent never touched the figure of Rs. 3500/-, therefore, their tenancies are governed by DRC Act. The validity of notice under section 106 TP Act is also challenged on the ground that in the said notice the tenancy has been taken to be one whereas there were four separate tenancies which could not be terminated by a composite notice.

(3.) On these pleadings learned trial Court framed appropriate issues and when the case was at the stage of evidence, the plaintiff/ petitioner herein filed application under O. 12 R.6 dated 26.4.2002 for passing a judgment on the admission made in the pleadings. This application was opposed by the respondents by filing a detailed reply thereto. In the said reply defendants took a similar stand as taken in their written statements. After considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and various authorities cited by them, learned ADJ observed that an specific issue has already been framed on the point as to whether defendants were separate tenants @ Rs. 625/- paid per month and this plea can be decided only after parties led evidence in proof of their respective versions. Learned Additional District Judge held that since there was no unequivocal admission in the pleadings, it would not be proper to pass a decree under 0.12 Rule 6 CPC on the basis of admissions. Accordingly, petitioner's application under 0.12 Rule 6 CPC was rejected by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner / plaintiff has filed this petition.