Valmiki J Mehta, J.@mdashThe challenge by means of the Regular First Appeal u/s 96 of the CPC 1908 is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.8.2010 whereby the suit of the Respondent/Plaintiff for possession and mesne profits has been decreed.
2. The facts of the case are that the Appellants/Defendants admittedly entered into a registered lease deed dated 16.11.2007 with the Respondent/Plaintiff with respect to property No. 310, New Delhi House, 27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-1. This lease was for a period of thirteen and a half months from 16.112007 to 31.12.2008. The monthly rent was Rs. 65,000/- which the Appellants paid during the lease period. Though, the lease was for a fixed period, which expired by efflux of time, Respondent/Plaintiff, as a matter of abundant caution, served a notice terminating the tenancy vide notice dated 24.12.2008 which was duly replied by the Appellants/Defendants by their reply dated 20.1.2009. On the Appellant failing to vacate the suit premises, subject suit came to be filed.
3. The Trial court has decreed the suit under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC because it found that there are no disputed questions of facts. I agree. The relationship between the parties is of a landlord and a tenant and a rate of rent is Rs. 65,000/- per month is clear from the admitted document being a registered lease deed dated 16.11.2000. Since the rent was more than Rs. 3,500/- per month, there is no protection to the tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The legal notice was sent by way of abundant caution, though the lease was for a fixed period which expired with efflux of time. The notice terminating tenancy was received by the Appellants/Defendants who replied to the same vide reply dated 20.1.2009. Thus, all the ingredients necessary for decree of suit of possession and mesne profits exist, i.e. being the relationship of landlord and tenant, the rent being Rs. 65,000/- (i.e. above Rs. 3,500/)-, expiry of tenancy by efflux of time or in any case termination of tenancy by the legal notice. There is therefore no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and the suit has been rightly decreed.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants firstly argued that there were disputes between the erstwhile owner and the Respondent/Plaintiff who was the subsequent owner of the premises and the Appellants had received notice from the erstwhile owner Sh. Nirupam Gupta not to hand over the possession of the premises to the Respondent/Plaintiff. It is argued that Sh. Nirupam Gupta informed the Appellants that the sale consideration was not complete and hence Appellants should not hand over the possession to Respondent/Plaintiff. In my opinion, this argument is misconceived because as per Section 116 of the Evidence Act, a tenant cannot dispute the title of his landlord. In the present case, the Appellant/Defendant entered into a registered lease deed dated 16.11.2007 with the Respondent for a period of 13 and a half months and paid rent to the Respondents/Plaintiffs for the lease period.
5. In view of the above I do not find any merit in this appeal which is therefore dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
CM Nos. 2155-57/2010
6. Since the appeal is disposed of therefore the applications are also disposed of as having become infructuous.
