NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD Vs. B N CHADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is yet another case in which a tenant in occupation of the demised premises has suffered a decree for eviction as no triable issue arose from the pleadings of the parties. Since the tenancy in question was not protected under the Rent Control Act, the validity of the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was by far the only defence seriously urged before the court below. A somewhat desperate plea suggesting that the plaintiff had not signed the plaint was also urged but repelled by the trial court while decreeing the suit to the extent it related to delivery of possession under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC. The appellant has assailed the validity of the said judgment and decree before us in the present appeal.

(2.) A portion of the property bearing No. 58 situate on the Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi was let out to the defendant appellant herein in terms of a lease deed executed on 6th July, 2000. Monthly rental of Rs.30,000/- settled between the parties was payable to the landlord by the 10th of every calender month. Although the lease deed purported to create a tenancy for a period of three years, yet since the document was not duly registered, the tenancy remained a month to month tenancy which was terminated by a notice dated 12.01.2003, with effect from the midnight of 31.01.2003. Since the defendant did not vacate the premises, a suit for possession by eviction of the defendant tenant became necessary in which apart from the relief of possession, the plaintiff claimed rent @ Rs.30,000/- for the period 01.01.2003 to 31.01.2003 and mesne profits/damages w.e.f. 31.01.2003 @ Rs.2,00,000/- per month till peaceful possession of the premises was surrendered and handed over by the tenant.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendant, it was inter alia alleged that the plaint had not been signed and verified by the plaintiff as he was bed ridden for two years preceding the institution of the suit. It was also alleged that the notice of termination was not issued under the instructions of the plaintiff. Receipt of the notice was, however, admitted but the validity thereof questioned and a prayer for dismissal of the suit on that account made by the defendant.