PUNJAB & SIND BANK Vs. BALBIR SINGH KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated, facts of the case, for the purpose of disposal of present appeal, are that property bearing no. B -9, Gujranwala Town, Part -I, Delhi was purchased by the respondents from Shri Raj Tandon in the year 1988. Appellant was tenant in respect of the ground floor and basement of said property right from 1975 onwards (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'). A registered lease deed was executed between Shri Raj Tandon and appellant on 27th August, 1991 for a period of 5 years, that is, with effect from 1st March, 1990 to 28th February, 1995. Since the suit property was used by the appellant for non confirming use, therefore, proceedings under Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 were initiated against the erstwhile owner. As per the appellant, penalty imposed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was paid by the appellant initially but subsequently, appellant disputed its liability to pay the same. However, issue regarding payment of penalty is not relevant for the purpose of present appeal since legality of decree of possession passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is the subject matter involved in this appeal.

(2.) RESPONDENTS further alleged that a registered lease agreement was executed between the respondents and appellant on 25th May, 2006 for a period of 5 years commencing from 1st March, 2005 on the payment of monthly rent, as spelled out in the lease deed. Appellant agreed to pay rent on 5th day of each succeeding calendar month. After expiry of 5 years appellant continued to occupy the suit property on one or the other pretext, despite the fact that it had failed to comply with the terms as contained in the lease deed dated 25th May, 2006. Vide notice dated 22nd February, 2010 appellant was informed that since lease was expiring on 28th February, 2010 appellant shall handover peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to respondent on or before 31st March, 2010. On receipt of this notice appellant sent a reply through its counsel alleging therein that lease stood automatically renewed. Respondent alleged that after expiry of the lease in the year 2010 appellant became tenant on month to month basis. Rent of the premises was increased after expiry of lease deed on 28th February, 2010 but no registered lease deed was executed between the parties. As on the date of filing of suit appellant was paying rent of Rs.81,000/ - to the respondents. Appellant did not pay non confirming charges though it assured that it shall be paid. Appellant also assured to vacate the suit premises but to no effect. Appellant continued to hold the possession of the suit property. Accordingly, vide notice dated 21st August, 2012 respondents again called upon the appellant to vacate the suit premises. Since the suit property was not vacated despite service of notice, hence the suit.

(3.) TRIAL court has held that landlord -tenant relationship was admitted by the appellant. Rent of the premises being more than Rs.3,500/ - was an admitted fact, thus, suit property was not covered under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. As regards automatic renewal of lease deed is concerned, trial court has held that since no fresh registered lease deed was executed for future period, tenancy was on month to month basis on expiry of five years, accordingly, same could have been terminated by the respondent by serving the notice dated 25th February, 2010 on the appellant. In any case, it was terminated vide notice dated 1st October, 2012 which was sent through registered post at the correct address, thus, a presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is drawn that the same had been duly received by the addressee. Finally, the tenancy stood terminated vide notice dated 1st October, 2012. By placing reliance on Punjab National Bank vs. Virendra Prakash & Another : 188 (2012) DLT 48 and Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kavita P. Lalwani : 191 (2012) DLT 594, trial court has concluded that respondents were entitled to a decree of possession under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC since above -referred three ingredients were duly established from the admission culled out from the pleadings and documents of the parties.