RAJIV SRIVASTAVA Vs. SANJIV TULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28th April, 2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No.104 of 2000 decreeing the aforesaid suit for possession in respect of flat bearing No.B-46, Hill View Apartment, Vasant Vihar, new Delhi and directing for handing over and vacating the suit premises to the respondents herein within a period of three months. It was also ordered that the claim for mesne profit/damages w.e.f 1.4.1999 till the date of delivery of the possession would be determined under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure by a separate enquiry. Therefore, in this particular appeal the scope of scrutiny would be confined to only the decree of possession, which was granted by the learned trial court in the aforesaid suit on the basis of an application filed by the respondents under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We had heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on the said issue, at length, who had also taken us through the findings recorded and relevant documents.

(2.) The aforesaid suit was filed by the respondent Sh.Sanjeev Tuli, who is the exclusive owner and landlord of the flat bearing No.B-46, Hill View Apartment, Vasant Vihar, new Delhi, which is the suit property. The suit was instituted against M/s.Beltek India Limited. The aforesaid premises was given on lease for a period of two years, which commenced from 11th September, 1996 and was due to expire on 10th September, 1998 under a registered lease deed dated 26th September, 1996. One of the stipulations in the said lease deed was that the premises in question was let out for residential purposes to Mr.Rajiv Srivastava and his family members and not for any other purpose. It was stated in the plaint filed that before expiry of the lease period, the respondent herein, who was the plaintiff, informed the defendant, namely, M/s.Beltek India Limited about the term of lease deed, vide letter dated 30th July, 1998, which was duly acknowledged by the authorised signatory of the respondent company. As M/s.Beltek India Limited, respondent No.2 herein failed to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises, on expiry of the lease deed and they continued to occupy the premises illegally and without any authorisation, the aforesaid suit was filed seeking for a decree of possession and also for payment of mesne profit and damages. The suit was initially filed by the respondent No.1 herein as the plaintiff against M/s.Beltek India Limited as the sole defendant, as the lease agreement was between the said two parties. Subsequently, however, defendant No.2, who is the sole appellant herein, filed an application for impleadment, upon which he was impleaded as one of the defendants and, therefore, the suit had two defendants on record, when the judgment and decree was passed.

(3.) The suit was contested by both the defendants by filing written statement. Replication to the written statement of the defendants was also filed. The learned trial court proceeded to record the statement of the appellant herein under Order 10 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on 14th March, 2001. An application was filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure to pass a decree for ejectment of the defendants from the suit premises on the ground that there was clear and unequivocal admission on the part of the respondent. The said application was also opposed by the defendant. The learned trial court heard the counsel for the parties on the said application and on appreciation and analysing the pleadings of the parties and the admissions made, decreed the suit partly in the aforesaid manner. The learned trial court considered the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents placed on record and thereafter it recorded that the following facts are admitted between the parties:- i. Rate of rent of the premises is Rs.12,000/- per month. ii. Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. iii. Registered lease-deed had come to an end by efflux of time. Another admission, to which reference was made, was to the following effect:- After expiry of the registered lease-deed dated 26th September, 1996, no fresh lease deed had been executed and registered.