R P KAPOOR Vs. HOLIDAY HOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present dispute between the petitioner / landlord and the respondent / tenant has had a chequered history since the inception of litigation between the parties in the year 1990.

(2.) The subject matter of dispute is the property known as A " 2/11, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred to as, "the premises"). The petitioner is the perpetual lessee of the plot in pursuance to the Perpetual Lease Deed dated 14.08.1964. The premises were let out to the respondent in the year 1980 for a period of 3 years and the tenancy is stated to have come to an end by efflux of time in the year 1983. It is, however, in the year 1990 that two legal notices were issued by the petitioner terminating the tenancy of the respondent and since the premises were not vacated, a suit for possession and recovery of damages was filed. It was the plea of the petitioner that the property was being misused and damage has also been caused to the property. The suit had, however, to be withdrawn subsequently in view of the objection of the respondent that the same had been filed by Shri R.P. Kapoor, while the property had been let out by Shri R.P. Kapoor (HUF). The petitioner had sought leave to file a fresh suit, but the same was not granted by learned Additional District Judge on the ground that there was no necessity to do so as R.P. Kapoor (HUF) could file a fresh suit after issuing a notice of termination of tenancy. The petitioner thereafter issued a legal notice dated 28.02.1995 and filed a fresh suit in July, 1995 for possession, recovery of arrears of rent and recovery of damages.

(3.) It appears that since there was misuser in the property, Delhi Development Authority (for short, "DDA") as the perpetual lessor claimed that the lease had been cancelled and in the year 1997 filed an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred to as, "the Code") seeking to be impleaded as a party on that account. The respondent naturally supported DDA. This application was allowed by the trial court, but the petitioner aggrieved by the same filed a civil revision petition bearing C.R. No. 1185/1997, which was allowed by the Order dated 23.04.2001 and the application filed by DDA was dismissed. The substratum of the reasoning of learned Single Judge of this Court in the said judgment is based on the plea of the petitioner that in a suit between a landlord and a tenant for possession on the ground that tenancy of the tenant had been terminated in accordance with law, the only question to be investigated by the Court was whether the tenancy had been terminated in accordance with law. Learned Judge observed that the Court is not required to go into the question as to whether the landlord had ceased to be the owner of the property and that tenant could not have denied the title of the landlord. Thus, the issue whether the lease was terminated or not became immaterial. The question whether the lease was terminated by DDA was not a question to be decided by the trial court and it was for the DDA to take action as may be permissible in law against the petitioner after termination of the lease.