AMAR TEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. PRAMOD SEKHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri M.C. Pande, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B.D. Pande, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri D. Barthwal, the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the property in question and had let out the premises to the applicant through a lease deed for a period of two years at a monthly rent of Rs.84,892/-. The lease deed contemplated that the tenancy in the first instance would be of two years which would be renewed twice for a further period of two years. Accordingly, the lease started from 16 th March, 2004 which was renewed in the year 2006, again in 2008 and, eventually, it expired on 16 th March, 2010. Prior to the expiry of the period, the plaintiff served a notice dated 18 th January, 2010 which was served on 21 st January, 2010 intimating the defendant about the expiry of lease period and called upon the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the tenanted accommodation after the expiry of 30 days from the receipt of the notice and latest by 16 th March, 2010, i.e., when the renewal of the lease was going to an end. It is alleged that the defendant undertook to vacate the premises by 16 th March, 2010. It transpires that the plaintiff again sent a notice dated 8 th February, 2010 reminding the defendant that the lease would not be extended beyond 16 th March, 2010 and, consequently, requested the defendant to comply with the notice dated 18 th January, 2010. Since the defendant did not vacate the premises in question, a suit for eviction was filed. In paragraph 8 of the plaint, it was contended that the premises is situated in a posh commercial area in Dehradun which could easily be let out at Rs.20,000/- per day and, consequently, the plaintiff is entitled for mense profit @ Rs. 20,000/- per day w.e.f. 17 th March, 2010 onwards. It was also alleged that the defendant had paid the rent upto 31 st March, 2010 and that the rent for the period 1 st March, 2010 to 16 th March, 2010 amounting to Rs.45,275/- was due and payable. The plaintiff, consequently, prayed for the eviction of the defendant and further prayed for the recovery of the rent and damages during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit and denied the plaint allegation and admitted the receipt of the notice but contended that he did not undertake to vacate the premises by 16 th March, 2010 or had telephonically assured the plaintiff with regard to the vacating the premises in question. On these pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues :-