DARSHAN SINGH KOHLI Vs. ROCKLAND SECURITIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent and for grant of mesne profits/damages for the use and occupation of property bearing flat No. SF-03, Apsara Arcade, Pusa Road, New Delhi. The plaintiffs are the owners of this property and had leased it to the defendant through a duly registered lease deed dated 30th October, 1995. It is averred in the plaint that rent has been paid only up to March, 1996. Since the defendant was not paying its dues towards rental as well as towards maintenance, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit.

(2.) On 8.12.1997 it was ordered that the defendant should continue to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.64,000.00 per month within four weeks. Against this order the defendant filed FAO (OS) 32/98 which was dismissed. On 19.5.1998 the defendant was given an opportunity to explain why its defence should not be struck off for non-compliance of the aforementioned order dated 8.12.1997. On 24.7.1998 the defence of the defendant was struck off. On the subsequent date the defendant was proceeded ex parte and plaintiffs were directed to file affidavits by way of evidence. An affidavit by way of evidence was firstly filed on 24.10.1998 and thereafter a fresh affidavit was permitted to be filed by order dated 9.4.1999 and this was so done on 12.5.1999.

(3.) The plaintiffs have proved the lease deed which is Exhibit Public Witness 1 /2. It contained covenants that the rent was agreed as Rs. 64,000.00 per month. Though the initial period of letting was for three years, a renewal for another three years was envisaged at a 20% increase over the previous rent.Clause 8 further witnessed that the lessee (the defendant) shall pay all charges for common services like maintenance and of running of lifts, air conditioning, lighting and maintenance of common places, staircases, fire-fighting equipments, etc. Exhibit Public Witness 1/3 is a reply-cum-notice dated 26th July, 1996 which was served on the defendant. In this letter the plaintiffs had, inter alia, raised a claim for Rs. 2,56,000.00 towards rent with effect from 1.4.1996 upto 31.7.1996. Invoking Clause 6 of lease deed (Exhibit Public Witness 1/2) the tenancy was terminated and the defendant was called upon to hand over peaceful possession of the demised premises on or before 31.8.1996. Exhibit Public Witness 1/3 was posted on 31.7.1996 and the A.D. cards are Public Witness 1/6 and Public Witness 1/7. Although these A.D, cards do not show the date of delivery of Exhibit Public Witness 1/3 it can be fairly assumed that this occurred well before 15.8.1996. Hence the statutory obligation of issuance of a notice as contemplated by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has been duly met. I accordingly hold that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant nd that this relationship was validly terminated.