POOJA AGGARWAL Vs. SAKATA INX INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has assailed an order dated 9th October 2007 passed by learned trial court whereby an application of the petitioner under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC was dismissed observing inter alia that in order to grant relief under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC, it was necessary that the admission by the party of the facts alleged should be unambitious, and the defendant had not made an admission of termination of tenancy, as claimed by the plaintiff.

(2.) THE relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is undisputed in this case. It is also an undisputed fact that the rate of rent was more than Rs. 3500/- and the tenancy was initially entered into for a period of three years by way of a registered lease deed starting from 1st August 2003 and the rent reserved was Rs. 10,000/- per month. The premises in question is a Flat no. 614, 6th Floor, Devika Tower, 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110006. The premises was let out for commercial use and it had an area of 500 sq. ft. The tenancy came to an end by efflux of time on 31st July 2006. However, the premises was not vacated by the defendant. Thereafter, a notice terminating the tenancy was sent by the petitioner on 10th November 2006. When the premises was still not vacated, the plaintiff filed a suit in April 2007 for possession.

(3.) THE defendant had not denied the relationship of landlord and tenant or the tenancy having been created for a period of three yeas byway of a registered lease deed. The defence taken by the defendant was that the flat of the plaintiff (petitioner herein) formed part of an undivided premises ad measuring 1970 sq. ft of 6th Floor flat, Devika Tower and there were five landlords. The premises was taken on rent through Real Estate Promoters and Consultants namely cosmos Developers Private Limited. The plaintiff was only a landlord and not the owner of whole of the premises and, therefore, the suit was bad. The rate of rent was not denied. Regarding notice, it was stated that the plaintiff could not have terminated the tenancy arbitrarily by means of a notice dated 10th november 2006 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act since the premises formed part of an undivided larger premises ad measuring 1970 sq. ft. It was contended that the landlord had agreed to lease out the premises for a period of six years commencing from 1st August 2003 and had also agreed to increase the rental from 1st August 2006, the other landlord namely Ms. Kamla kumari has confirmed the agreement in respect of Flat bearing No. 622 which also formed part of this undivided flat.