AGS RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. USHA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As identical questions of law & facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of the indicated five revision petitions between the same parties, arising out of the similar impugned orders, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petitions, have been extracted from (1) CR No.4 of 2014 titled as "M/s AGS Retail Private Limited & another Vs. Mrs. Usha Gupta & another" for ready reference in this respect.

(2.) The matrix of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petitions and emanating from the record, is that Usha Gupta (respondent-plaintiff No.1) wife of M.L.Gupta (respondent-plaintiff No.2) had purchased the property in dispute from M/s Aerens Goldsouk International Ltd. Company (petitioner-defendant No.2) along with the rights in common passage, stair cases and all other common facilities and amenities, vide agreement to sell dated 6.11.2009 for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,31,88,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty One Lac Eighty Eight Thousand Only). The entire sale consideration was paid by plaintiff No.2 for and on behalf of plaintiff No.1 to defendant No.2, by way of cheque, bearing No.474831 dated 6.11.2009, drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. According to plaintiffs that at the time of execution of the pointed agreement to sell, defendant No.2 had leased out the property to defendant No.1 and it was in symbolic possession thereof. The notional possession of the suit property was transferred from defendant No.2 to plaintiff No.1 and there was substitution of plaintiff No.1 in place of defendant No.2 as its landlord. In this manner, defendant No.1 was inducted as a lessee of plaintiff No.1 and a written lease agreement dated 6.11.2009 on the same day was executed between the parties on a stamp paper of Rs.50/-. The lease amount was settled at the rate of Rs.2,35,500/- (Rupees Two Lac Thirty Five Thousand Five Hundred only) per month, which was payable in advance every month on or before the 10th day of each English calendar month. As per clause 3 of the lease agreement, it was obligatory on the part of defendant No.1 to bear the stamp duty, registration charges etc. and to register the lease deed. Defendant No.1-company had initially paid the security deposit and monthly rent for nine months from April, 2010 to December, 2010. Thereafter, it stopped paying the rent to the landlord with effect from January, 2011 onwards.

(3.) Sequelly, the plaintiffs claimed that in the absence of registered deed of lease between the parties, the tenancy of suit premises has taken the shape of monthly tenancy, by means of legal fiction. Thereafter, plaintiff No.1 issued legal notice, terminated the monthly tenancy and called upon defendant No.1 to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in dispute to her after the expiry of the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice and not later than 31.12.2011. The refundable security was adjusted against the rent for the months of January to March, 2011 and defendant No.1-lessee was accordingly informed, through the medium of legal notice dated 7.12.2011, which was duly served on defendant No.1 by registered AD as well as courier.