ROSHINI KHATTAR Vs. ABHISHEK VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of possession on the basis of admissions made by the defendant in the written statement. The plaintiff's case is that the suit property - Villa -1B, Empire Estate situated at Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Sultan Pur, New Delhi -was let out to the defendant for the first time on 01.10.2001 for a period of 12 months. However, that was done on the basis of a lease deed which was unregistered and improperly stamped. The tenancy of the defendant was continued from time to time and it was last renewed by virtue of another similar lease deed which was unregistered and unstamped and which was dated 01.10.2003. That lease was also for a period of two years. It was also averred that the last rent paid by the defendant was for the month of May, 2006 and it was in the sum of Rs 1,10,000/-.

(2.) IT is the case of the plaintiff that the leases that were entered into between the parties, being unregistered and improperly stamped, would have to be disregarded and consequently the tenancy of the defendant was a month to month tenancy which could be terminated by issuance of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It is contended by the learned counsel that such a notice was issued on 19.02.2007 which was sent by registered post. He submitted that the receipt of this notice is admitted by the defendant inasmuch as subsequent to the filing of the suit, a reply also has been sent to this notice by the defendant. However, because the defendant was lodged in jail at that point of time (and he continues to be in jail even today), the plaintiff for better safety issued a second notice dated 09.04.2007 to the defendant through the Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail, New Delhi. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that this notice was also received by the defendant. By virtue of the notice dated 19.02.2007 the plaintiff had given 15 days clear notice requiring the defendant to vacate the premises by the end of 31.03.2007. The second notice required the handing over of possession by the end of 30.04.2007.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the defendant submitted that although the relationship of landlord and tenant is not denied between the plaintiff and the defendant, there was an oral understanding that the defendant be allowed to occupy the premises without payment of rent. He also submitted that though there is no denial of receipt of the two notices, the said notices were illegal. He submitted that had the first notice been legal, what was the necessity of sending the second notice. He also submitted that since the defendant was in jail since August, 2006 and his financial assets had been frozen by the CBI, the defendant could not make any payment for occupation of the said premises to the plaintiff. He submitted that there was sufficient dispute raised by the defendant and, therefore, the suit required to proceed to trial and could not be decided on the basis of this application.