CHANDER KANTA SINGHAL Vs. KAPADIA EXPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs who filed two separate suits on 1.2.90 for possession and mesne profits for use and occupation in respect of ground floor, 1st and 2nd floors of the property bearing No. 94, Malcha Marg. Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit accommodation') are the appellants. Ground floor of the said building, subject matter of RFA No. 357/95, was let out to the defendant firm at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000.00 and first and 2nd floor whereof, subject matter of RFA No. 359/95, was let out to the defendant at a monthly rentof Rs. 4,000.00. By meansoftwonotices dated 2.11.89, thedefendant's tenancies were terminated but despite service of the said notices, the defendant did not vacate the suit accommodation. The suits were resisted on the grounds that: (a) the plaintiffs arc not the owners of the suit accommodation and as such they had no right to serve quit notice dated 2.11.89; (b) the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs had waived the quit notice dated 2.11.89 by accepting rent for the period from 1.1.90 to 30.4.90 amounting to Rs. 16,000.00, and (e) the suit is barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2.) The Trial Court framed as many as five issues and after examining one witness on the side of the plaintiffs, and two witnesses on the side of the defendant, it found that each portion of the suit accommodation was let out to the defendant by the plaintiffs at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000.00 and as such the plaintiffs' suit is not barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act in view of the judgment in D.C. Bhatia v. Union of India, J.T. 1994 (7) S.C. 114.

(3.) It has also been found that the alleged payment of Rs. 16,000.00 by the defendant to the plaintiffs does not amount to waiver of the quit notice dated 2.11.89.