KANTA MANOCHA Vs. HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit for possession and mesne profits, the plaintiff has filed the application (I.A. 2435/96) under Order 12, Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code) for passing a decree of possession on admission.

(2.) The plaintiff's case is that she is the owner of property No. E-525, Greater Kailash-ll, New Delhi; had let out the same to the defendant under a lease deed dated 18.1.1982 at a monthly rent of Rs. 6,500.00 . The lease was duly registered and was for a period of three years and renewable, for a period of two years with enhanced rent of 10%, which was so renewed for two years and the rent was raised Rs. 7,150.00 ; that lease being for a fixed period, expired by efflux of time after five years; the defendant did not vacate the premises; after the amendment in the Delhi Rent Control Act in 1988, the premises are out of the purview of that Act as the rent is more than Rs. 3.500.00 per month. The plaintiff also gave notice dated 20.2.1990 terminating the tenancy though it was not necessary. The defendant has not vacated the premises, the plaintiff also) claims mesne profits @ Rs. 35,000.00 , hence this suit for possession and damages from 17.1.1987 till the date of filing of the suit and further mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 10.

(3.) Defendanthas filed a written statement contesting the suit. It is alleged that the suit is not maintainable as the attorney has no locus standi to file the suit. It is admitted that a lease was executed in the year 1982 for a period of three years which was renewed for two years on enhanced rent of 10%. It is alleged that after the expiry of the lease period, the plaintiff had agreed that the defendant will continue to occupy the premises on the same terms as per the lease deed; a. id on the basis of that agreement, they are occupying the premises as a lawful tenant. The plea thus is of holding over. It is also alleged that amendment made in the Delhi Rent Control Act is prospective in operation and the benefit of the Delhi Rent Control Act is available to them. Validity of the amendment of the Delhi Rent Control Act is also challenged. It is also alleged that no valid notice of termination of the tenancy has been served, 495 the notice dated 20.2.1990 is invalid; suit is not maintainable, and the plaintiff is not entitled to decree of possession or for mesne profits.