SUKHVINDER KUMAR BHARDWAJ Vs. VINITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant tenant has assailed order dtd. 3/8/2024 of the learned Trial Court whereby, after dismissing the application of the appellant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the learned Trial Court invoked suo motu powers under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and passed preliminary decree of restoration of possession of the subject property in favour of the present respondent landlord and after framing issues related to recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits, posted the matter for trial. Having heard learned counsel for appellant and having perused the record, in my considered view it is not a fit case to even issue notice of the appeal to the respondent/landlord.

(2.) Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for present purposes are as follows. The present respondent being sole and absolute owner of the subject property, which is a ground floor DDA MIG Flat bearing no. AG-1/20A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, agreed to induct the appellant as a tenant in the subject property for residential purposes at a monthly rent of Rs.20,000.00. A rent agreement dtd. 20/1/2021 was executed between the parties and after expiry of the same with efflux of time, another rent agreement dtd. 22/3/2022 was executed, stipulating the monthly rent at a rate of Rs.21,000.00, after expiry whereof with efflux of time, another rent agreement dtd. 16/11/2022 stipulating the monthly rent at a rate of Rs.22,000.00 was executed between the parties. After expiry of the said rent agreement with efflux of time, the appellant did not vacate the subject property and the respondent landlord came to know that the appellant was using the subject property for commercial purposes. As such, the respondent issued a quit notice, which was duly served on the appellant. As the notice was ignored, the present respondent filed suit against the appellant for recovery of possession of the subject property and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. In the Written Statement, the appellant admitted the relationship of tenancy between the parties, the rate of rent being above the statutory protection and the service of quit notice. But the appellant resisted the suit, pleading that the tenancy was for commercial purposes as parties had orally agreed that the appellant could use the subject property for running his sole proprietorship business of pharmaceutical products for a period of seven years.

(3.) In the backdrop of above rival pleadings, the learned Trial Court traversing through various judicial precedents flowing from the Supreme Court and this Court found it a fit case to invoke the suo motu powers under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and partly decreed the suit to the extent of recovery of possession of the subject property in favour of the present respondent.