LAWS(DLH)-2009-5-110

TEXTILES COMMITTEE Vs. ANITA SURI

Decided On May 12, 2009
TEXTILES COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR Appellant
V/S
ANITA SURI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed a suit for possession, recovery of damages and permanent injunction in respect of the property comprising of ground, mezzanine, first, second and third floors situated at 41, Community Centre, Naraina Phase I, New Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as, the said property ) against the appellants.

(2.) The case of the respondent is that she is the exclusive owner of the said property, which was given on lease to appellant No. 1 in the year 1985 and thereafter the lease was renewed from time to time. The last extension was granted upto 30.04.2008 at the rent of Rs.1,12,000/- per month as per the Lease Agreement dated 01.12.2005. This Agreement, thus, stood expired by efflux of time on 30.04.2008 whereafter there has been no renewal of the lease. Appellant No. 1 was required to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the said property on the expiry of the lease, but appellant No. 1 failed to do so. Damages have also been claimed. A legal notice dated 21.05.2008 was also served under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ( for shot, the T.P. Act ). The respondent claimed that it had come to its notice that appellant No. 1 is under the control and management of appellant No. 2 / Government of India and an endeavour was being made to part with possession to some other Department of appellant No. 2.

(3.) The appellants filed the written statement and on merits, all that was claimed was that the respondent was demanding unreasonable increase in rent, which was not conceded to by appellant No. 1. A preliminary objection had also been raised that no notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( for short, the said Code ) was given, though appellant No. 2 is the Secretary, Ministry of Textiles. In the same breath, it has also been stated that the suit is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of parties as appellant No. 2 has nothing to do with the plaintiff in the present lease matter. The prayer was for deletion of appellant No. 2 from the array of the defendants.