BENGALI SWEET CORNER Vs. ISHWAR DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) If the tenancy is not protected under the Rent Act, the tenant occupant has very limited defences open to him. More often than not the receipt or validity of the notice terminating the tenancy is the only question that is raised for determination by the defendant. We have come across cases in which the tenant has denied the title of the landlord to the property in his occupation, Section 116 of the Evidence Act notwithstanding. The defence raised by the defendant-tenant in the instant case is slightly different and if we may say so, somewhat ingenous. The defendant claimed that two tenancies were created in respect of the suit premises comprising the mezzanine floor of the building. One of these comprised an area of 460 sq ft. and commenced on 1st April, 1985 while the other was created just about seven days later on 7th April, 1985 in respect of the remaining 440 sq.ft. of area comprising the said floor. The defence obviously intended to defeat the action brought by the plaintiff on the ground that the two tenancies commencing on two different dates could not be terminated by the landlord by treating them as one nor could the delivery of possession on the same day be demanded in respect of both. The trial court of Additional District Judge, Delhi has, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, rejected the contention that the parties had created two distinct tenancies commencing on two different dates. The trial court held that there was one single tenancy in favour of the plaintiff- respondent in this appeal which commenced on 1st April, 1985 and which stood validly terminated in terms of the notice sent by the plaintiff through his counsel. The court has, on that basis, decreed the suit for possession against the defendant appellant together with compensation for unauthorized use and occupation of the premises @ Rs.15,000/- per month post termination of the tenancy. The present appeal filed by the defendant-tenant calls in question the correctness of the said judgment and decree.

(2.) The trial court had on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues :

(3.) In support of their case, one of the plaintiffs Keshav Das was examined as PW-1. In addition, plaintiffs examined PW-2 Sh. Shashi Tandon, PW-3 Sh. Subhash Chander, PW-4 Ms. Ranjana Singh and PW-5 Sh. Raghubir Singh as their witnesses. In rebuttal, the defendant produced DW-1 Sh. Omkar Singh apart from DW-2 Sh. Jai Prakash who happens to be one of the partners of the defendant firm. A witness from the treasury was examined by the plaintiff in rebuttal.