IN THE COURT OF Ms. REKHA RANI DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST) : DELHI CS No. 20/15 Unique Case ID No.02401C0303942015 NEERAJ SHARMA s/o Late Sh. J.P. Sharma r/o C3A/32B, Janak Puri, New Delhi110058. . . . . Plaintiff versus GEETA GAUTAM w/o Sh. Rajender Sharma r/o Property No.83A, Ground Floor, Block C6/A, Janak Puri, New Delhi110058. . . . . Defendant Date of Institution : 04.06.2015 Date of reserving the order : 21.01.2016 Date of pronouncement : 06.02.2016 JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed the instant suit seeking recovery of possession of property bearing Flat No.83A, Ground Floor, BlockC6A, Janak Puri, New Delhi (in short 'suit property') wherein, it is submitted that the defendant was inducted as a tenant by Smt. [ENTITY], mother of the plaintiff vide registered rent agreement dated 19.09.2011 @ monthly rent of Rs.9500/ for a period of 12 months.
Defendant also paid interest free security amount of Rs.9500/ refundable at the time of vacation of the suit property. The tenancy of the defendant was further extended for another period of 12 month upto 31.08.2013 vide registered rent deed dated 06.09.2012 by Smt. [ENTITY].
Smt. [ENTITY], mother of the plaintiff vide her letter dated 05.08.2013 called upon the defendant to vacate the suit property and to handover the peaceful possession of the same to her. However, defendant failed to vacate and handover the possession of the suit property despite receipt of letter dated 05.08.2013. Smt. [ENTITY] then served a legal notice dated 09.09.2013 through her counsel on the defendant calling upon him to vacate the suit property and handover peaceful possession of the same to her. The defendant responded to the said notice vide her reply dated 12.09.2013. The defendant started defaulting in payment of rent and failed to pay any rent w.e.f.01.05.2013.
Smt. [ENTITY] died on 18.06.2014 leaving behind the plaintiff and his two sisters namely [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] who have relinquished their respective shares in favour of the plaintiff vide registered Relinquishment Deed dated 26.11.2014 and as such the plaintiff has become absolute owner of the suit property.
The tenancy of the defendant expired by efflux of time on 31.08.2013 yet she failed to vacate the suit property. The defendant failed to pay rent of the suit property w.e.f.01.05.2013 @ Rs.10,500/ per month to the plaintiff as well as his mother.
It is further stated that defendant has become unauthorized occupant in the suit property after determination of her tenancy by efflux of time and further by service of legal notice dated 09.09.2013.
It is further stated that since, the defendant failed to pay the rent despite notice, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant vide legal notice dated 04.04.2015 vide which the defendant was called upon to handover vacant possession of the suit property to him on 10.05.2015 and to pay the arrears of rent w.e.f.01.05.2013 till 09.05.2015 @ Rs.10,500/ per month. She was further called upon to pay mesne profits @ Rs.1000/ per day for her unauthorized occupation in the suit property. The defendant sent her reply dated 24.04.2015 to the said notice.
On these facts, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of recovery of possession in respect of the suit property and for recovery of arrears of rent w.e.f.01.05.2013 till 09.05.2015 @ Rs.10,500/ per month and further for a decree of mesne profit and damages @ Rs.1000/ per day for unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property from the date of filing the suit till recovery of possession of the suit property.
2. Summons of the suit were served on the defendant who appeared and contested the suit vide her written statement wherein it is alleged that the plaintiff is neither the owner nor the landlord of the suit property. It is stated that after the demise of Smt. [ENTITY], mother of the plaintiff, the suit property was inherited by the plaintiff as well as his two sisters and therefore, the plaintiff alone has no locus standi to initiate the present proceedings and hence, the suit is bad for nonjoinder of other LRs of deceased Smt. [ENTITY] who are stated to be necessary parties.
The defendant has admitted that she was inducted as a tenant in the suit property by Smt. [ENTITY], mother of the plaintiff vide registered rent agreement dated 19.09.2011 @ Rs.9500/ per month for a period of 12 months. It is also admitted that her tenancy was further extended through rent deed dated 06.09.2012 for another 12 months upto 31.08.2013 @ monthly rent of Rs.10,450/. It is alleged that after expiry of rent deed dated 06.09.2012, it was mutually agreed between mother of the plaintiff and the defendant that tenancy is further extended for three years w.e.f.01.09.2013 at same rent of Rs.10,450/ per month. It is also submitted that the refundable security amount of Rs.9500/ was enhanced to Rs.3,50,000/ which was paid to the mother of the plaintiff by the defendant. It is also stated that since relations between the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant were cordial, she did not insist on execution of another rent agreement for extension of tenancy for further three years or for receipt in respect of payment of security amount of Rs.3,50,000/. It is also submitted that defendant had paid rent upto 01.04.2015 to the plaintiff @ Rs.10,450/ per month.
3. During the pendency of the Suit, the plaintiff filed an application u/[SECTION] [ACT] r/w [SECTION] [ACT] which is presently under adjudication. Vide the instant application, the plaintiff has prayed for passing a judgment on the basis of admissions made in the WS which application was contested by the defendant vide her reply to the said application.
4. I have heard Shri [ENTITY], Ld. counsel for the plaintiff. However, despite opportunity, neither oral arguments were addressed nor written submissions were filed on behalf of the defendant.
5. The instant suit was filed by the plaintiff stating that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; that the rate of rent is more than Rs. 3,500/ per month i.e. initially Rs. 9,500/ per month and thereafter Rs.10,500/ per month; and further that defendant having defaulted in payment of rent since 01.05.2013, was served with legal notice dated 04.04.2015 whereby she was called upon to clear arrears of rent upto date and also to handover vacant physical possession of the tenanted premises but she failed to do so.
Admission Qua Existence Of Jural Relationship Of Landlord And Tenant Between The Parties
6. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has argued that suit for possession deserves to be decreed as there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
7. The defendant, in her WS, has clearly admitted that she was inducted in the suit property as a tenant by the mother of the plaintiff vide registered rent agreement dated 19.09.2011 at a monthly rent of Rs.9500/ per month for a period of 12 months which tenancy was extended for a further period of 12 months upto 31.08.2013 through registered rent deed dated 06.09.2012. It is, therefore, clear that defendant has admitted her status qua the suit property as being a tenant of Smt. [ENTITY]. It is admitted that Smt. [ENTITY] is the mother of the plaintiff.
8. The defendant has objected to locus standi of the plaintiff to file the instant suit on the plea that plaintiff has not joined his sisters who are necessary parties.
9. In [PRECEDENT], it was observed that a coowner is as much an owner of the entire property as any sole owner of a property is. It was also observed that jurisprudentially it is not correct to say that a coowner of a property is not its owner. He owns every part of the composite property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a partowner or a fractional owner of the property.
In [PRECEDENT], it was clearly held that when the other coowner did not object to the eviction one coowner could maintain an action for eviction even in the absence of other coowner.
10. In view of the aforesaid, plaintiff is fully competent to seek eviction of the tenant from the suit property irrespective of whether or not other legal heirs have expressly authorized him to do so. Defendant / tenant cannot raise objection as to the locus standi of the plaintiff/ coowner on the ground that he is only a coowner or that he has not sought permission of other coowners to seek recovery of possession of tenanted premises.
11. Defendant, in para 5 of her WS, has himself admitted that she regularly paid rent to the plaintiff upto 01.04.2015 @ Rs.10,450/ per month which rent has been accepted by the plaintiff being legal heir of Smt. [ENTITY] as well as on behalf of other legal heirs. It was held in [PRECEDENT] that a person who collects rent from tenant comes within the meaning of landlord and is entitled to seek his eviction.
In view of the aforesaid, the relationship of landlord & tenant between the plaintiff & the defendant is established.
Admission Qua Existence Of Rent Being More Than Rs.3,500/ Per Month
12. There is clear, unambiguous and unequivocal admission of the defendant that she was inducted as a tenant in respect of suit property at initial rate of rent of Rs.9,500/ per month and thereafter it was enhanced to Rs.10,450/ per month. The same is also evident from the rent agreements dated 19.09.2011 and 06.09.2012 placed on record.
Admission Qua Termination of Tenancy As Per [SECTION] of [ACT]
13. It is not disputed that Smt. [ENTITY], the original landlady terminated the tenancy of the defendant vide letter dated 05.08.2013 which was duly served on the defendant. It is also not disputed that she sent legal notice dated 09.09.2013 to the defendant calling upon her to vacate the suit property and handover peaceful possession of the suit property to her which notice was duly respondent vide her reply dated 12.09.2013.
Smt. [ENTITY] died on 18.06.2014. The plaintiff has submitted that although tenancy of the defendant expired by efflux of time on 31.08.2013 yet he again terminated her tenancy vide legal notice dated 04.04.2015 which was duly served on the defendant and vide which he called upon the defendant once again to handover the possession of the suit property as well as to pay the arrears of rent.
14. Ld. counsel for the defendant has submitted that Smt. [ENTITY] had extended tenancy of the defendant for another three years w.e.f.01.09.2013 at the same monthly rent of Rs.10,450/ on receipt of Rs.3,50,000/ as refundable security deposit.
15. The said story put up by the defendant has no legs to stand and is absolutely unfounded legally as well as factually in view of [SECTION] of The [ACT] which mandates that a lease of an immovable property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year has to be by way of a registered document and no such document has been produced by the appellant.
Further, it is factually incorrect and baseless to allege that Smt. [ENTITY] ever intended to extend or extended the tenancy of defendant qua the suit property.
16. It is not in dispute that Smt. [ENTITY] served a legal notice dated 09.09.2013 on the defendant vide which she clearly informed the defendant that defendant had defaulted in payment of rent for the last three months and invoking clause3 of the rent agreement dated 06.09.2012 terming defendant as an illegal occupant in the suit property, she called upon the defendant to vacate the same and handover the vacant possession of the same to her within 15 days of the said legal notice. The said notice was duly replied by the defendant vide her reply dated 12.09.2013 in which she stated that Smt. [ENTITY] had extended her tenancy qua the suit property for another one year on her request.
Now, the stand is contrary to what the defendant has stated in the WS. In her reply dated 12.09.2013 to the legal notice dated 09.09.2013 of Smt. [ENTITY], defendant had stated that tenancy was extended for one year whereas in her WS, she has stated that Smt. [ENTITY] extended the tenancy for three years. In her reply to the said legal notice, she is silent about payment of refundable security amount of Rs.3,50,000/ to Smt. [ENTITY] whereas in her WS she has stated that she paid the said amount to her in consideration of her request for extension of her tenancy for three years.
17. In view of above, it cannot be disputed that the tenancy was from month to month, which can be determined either by efflux of time or issuance of notice under [SECTION] of [ACT] or by filing of civil suit for recovery of possession.
18. In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Apex Court has interalia held that : "It is well settled that filing of an eviction suit under the general law itself is a notice to quit on the tenant. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that no notice to quit was necessary under [SECTION] of the [ACT] in order to enable the respondent to get a decree of eviction against the appellant".
19. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case [PRECEDENT]. in [CASE NUMBER] decided on 25.03.2011 while placing reliance on M/s. [PRECEDENT] (supra) held that : "Even assuming the notice terminating tenancy was not served upon the appellant (though it has been served and as held by me above) the tenancy would stand terminated on filing of the subject suit against the appellant/defendant".
20. It is settled judicial view that [SECTION] [ACT] must be invoked for speedy adjudication if effect of pleadings or documents and even inferences arising therefrom ([PRECEDENT]) call for the same.
21. In [PRECEDENT], Hon'ble High Court observed that [SECTION] [ACT] need to be invoked in public interest to ensure speedy disposal of cases.
22. In view of above, the civil suit bearing No. 20/2015 is decreed u/[SECTION] [ACT] for recovery of possession of the suit property i.e. Flat No.83A, Ground Floor, BlockC6A, Janak Puri, New Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in Open Court ( [ENTITY] ) today the 06th day of District & Sessions Judge (West)
February, 2016. Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi