ANITA SURI Vs. TEXTILE COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, the plaintiff has asked for passing a decree for recovery of possession of the premises involved in the above suit on the basis of admissions made by the defendant in the WS.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and other reliefs in respect of the premises comprising of ground, mezzanine, first, second and third floor at 41 Community Centre, Naraina, Phase-I, New Delhi on the ground the lease of the premises was given in 1985 and thereafter it was renewed from time to time. The last renewal of the lease for a period of 3 years was effective from 1st May, 2005 till 30th April, 2008 at a monthly rent of Rs.1,12,000/- for the entire premises. The lease expired on 30th April, 2008. There was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 with regard to the renewal of lease despite exchange of correspondence between them and defendant no. 1 did not agree to the terms as offered by the plaintiff for renewal of this. Thus, the lease of defendant no. 1 stood terminated by afflux of time. Defendant no. 1 did not hand over the possession of the premises. Thereafter a notice dated 21st May, 2008 was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant no. 1 specifically terminating the lease of the defendant in respect of property on the expiry of notice period, i.e., midnight of 30th June, 2008 and 1st July, 2008. Despite notice, the defendant failed to vacate the premises. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession, for mesne profits/damages from 1st May, 2008 onwards @ Rs.9,60,000/-, pendent lite interest and future interest.

(3.) In the written statement, the defendant no. 1 had taken objections that defendant no. 2 was not a necessary party and has been wrongly made as a party on merits. It was not denied that the premises in question was under tenancy of defendant no.1 at a monthly rent of Rs.1,12,000/-. It is also not denied that the tenancy came to an end on 30 th April, 2008 by afflux of time. Rather it is stated in the WS that the defendant o. 1 sent, on 14th March, 2008, a legal notice for renewal of the lease agreement in response to which, the plaintiff sent a letter dated 24th March, 2008 therein quoting market rate of the rent for renewal of the tenancy. This market rate of the rent as quoted by the plaintiff was not acceptable to the defendant no.1. A meeting was held between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 on 8th April, 2008 regarding rent. The rent offered by defendant no. 1 was not acceptable to the plaintiff. Thereafter, a notice was received from the plaintiff through her Advocate terminating the tenancy.