CASE NO.:
Special Leave Petition (civil) 20914 of 2004
PETITIONER:
Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors.
RESPONDENT:
Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/03/2005
BENCH:
P.VENKATARAMA REDDI & A.K. MATHUR
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
A.K. MATHUR, J.
This Special Leave Petition is filed against an order dated
August 25,2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi whereby learned Single Judge has set
aside the order dated February 13,2004 passed by the trial court
whereby the trial court declined to pass an order of eviction moved
by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(hereinafter to be referred to as "C.P.C.") and observed that the
application made at this stage is not maintainable and the suit shall
be decided recording necessary evidence of the parties in order to do
complete justice and dismissed the application of the plaintiff filed
under Order XII Rule 6, C.P.C. Hence the present revision was filed
before the High Court. The said revision application came to be
disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on August
25, 2004.
In order to dispose of the present petition, brief facts may
be detailed herein. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for eviction, arrears
of rent and damages/ mesne profit against the defendant-petitioners
alleging therein that the premises in question was let out to the
defendant- petitioners jointly on a monthly rent of Rs.2500/- vide
agreement dated September 4, 1977. The tenancy commenced with
effect from October 1, 1977. The rent was increased from time to time
at the rate of 10 per cent per month. For the period from September
1, 1998 to August 31, 2001 the defendant- petitioners paid rent at the
rate of Rs.3327/- per month. On July 28,2001 the plaintiff-respondent
No.1 served a notice on the defendant- petitioners under Section 6A
read with Section 8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ( hereinafter
to be referred to as " the Act"), notifying therein that the rent would be
increased by 10 per cent with effect from September 1,2001. Since
the monthly rent of the demised premises became Rs. 3659/- which
is more than Rs.3500/-with effect from September 1,2001, the
provisions of the Act ceased to apply to the demised premises. The
plaintiff- respondent No.1 then terminated the tenancy of the
defendant-petitioners by separate legal notice dated October 8,2001.
The said notice was duly served on the defendant- petitioners by
registered post with acknowledgment due on October 11,2001. The
plaintiff-respondent No.1 thereupon filed the suit for recovery of
possession as well as for recovery of arrears of rent for the month of
September & October, 2001 and pendente lite and future interest
and mesne profit/ damages at the rate of Rs.40,000/-.
The suit was contested by the defendant- petitioners by filing
written statement. The defendants did not dispute the existence of
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also
admitted that the tenancy commenced from October 1,1977 on a
monthly rent of Rs.2500/- under rent note dated September 4,1977.
The rent was increased from time to time by serving notice under
Section 6A of the Act. Service of notice dated July 28,2001 under
Section 6A of the Act and notice dated 8th October, 2004 under
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not denied. The
defence put in by the defendant-petitioners was that the tenancy was
not a joint one but it was a separate, independent and distinct
tenancy of the four individuals and they were liable to pay rent
individually. In their written statement they also made a reference to
letters dated August 3,1992 and September 17,1992, which
according to the defendants, supported their version that they were
separate, independent and distinct tenants. It was pointed out that in
the communication made by the plaintiff on September 17,1992 the
plaintiff refused to accept the cheque for a sum of Rs. 42,000/- as it
was tendered on behalf of one of the defendants only. But later on
the plaintiff accepted the cheque on March 24,1994 for a sum of
Rs.60,000/- which was tendered on behalf of all four defendants. This
according to the defendants, indicated that the plaintiff herself treated
the defendants as separate tenants. It was also contended that the
defendants' individual share of rent never reached the figure of
Rs.3,500/-. Therefore, the question of non-applicability of the
provisions of the Act does not arise. The defendants did not dispute
their liability to pay the arrears of rent from September, 2004 but they
denied the liability to pay damages/ mesne profits.
The main thrust of the defendants was that this tenancy which
was entered into between the plaintiff and the four defendants
namely; Sh Charanjit Lal Mehra, Sh. Ashok Kumar Mehra, Sh.
Aswini Kumar Mehra and Sh.Yashpal Mehra was not a joint tenancy
but it was an individual tenancy and each one of them had to pay his
share towards the rent. Therefore, it was not a joint/ common tenancy
and as such the quantum of rent of each individual tenant did not
exceed Rs.3500/- per month. It was also contended that the notice
under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has been taken to
be one whereas there should have been four separate notices for
four separate tenancies and this single notice cannot terminate the
four tenancies.
From the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed certain
issues and when the case was at the stage of evidence an
application under Order XII Rule 6 was filed by the plaintiff on April
26,2002 for passing a judgment on the admission made in the
pleadings. This application was opposed by the defendants by filing
a detailed reply and a plea taken was that it was not a joint tenancy
and it was individual tenancy and each one of the tenants has to pay
rent at the rate of Rs.625/-. However, learned trial court did not
decide this issue and felt that the same be decided after evidence
was adduced and therefore, dismissed the said application.
Aggrieved against the said order, a revision application was filed
before the High Court and the learned Single Judge of the High
Court after hearing the parties and examining the matter in detail
came to the conclusion that the admitted facts are that (i) there
existed the relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties
which is created by the lease deed executed on 4th September 1997;
(ii) notice of termination under Section 106 of the Transfer of
Property Act has been duly served and notice for enhancement of
rent from time to time under Section 6A of the Act had also been
served; (iii) the rate of rent exceeded Rs.3500/- per month when the
notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served;
(iv) the rent was always tendered on behalf of all four brothers and
not individually on behalf of any of them. Learned Single Judge of
the High Court examined the matter in detail and found that in fact
there was a common/ composite tenancy and not individual tenancy
created in favour of four defendants each. Learned Single Judge also
referred to certain communications referred to by appellants. One of
the communications was of the date August 19,1992 when a cheque
for a sum of Rs.42,500/- as arrears of rent was tendered to the
respondent No.1- plaintiff for the period from April 1, 1991 to August
31,1992 and the cheque was signed by only one person i.e. Yashpal
Mehra. In this connection, the plaintiff wrote a letter on September
17,1992 that Yashpal Mehra is one of the tenants and he is not the
only tenant. From this letter an argument was sought to be raised that
this was not a composite tenancy but it was an individual tenancy.
The learned Judge rightly commented that the letter did not indicate
that there were separate tenancies. In fact, in the said letter, Yashpal
Mehra was described as a co-tenant. Subsequently when a cheque
for a sum of Rs.60,000/- was sent as rent for the period from April 1,
1991 to May 31, 1993 the same was accepted by the landlady vide
receipt dated May 24,1993. This cheque was tendered on behalf of
the four brothers. Therefore, the argument is advanced on the basis
of the letter dated September 17,1992 that it is not a case of
admission as the plaintiff herself treated it as a separate tenancy.
The learned Single Judge examined the matter and found that this
subsequent cheque of Rs.60,000/- was sent on behalf of four
brothers. Therefore, one isolated letter does not change the character
of the tenancy and accordingly, learned Single Judge found that
there is admission on the part of the defendants that there is a joint
tenancy and the rent exceeded more than Rs.3500/-. Therefore, on
the admission of the defendants, learned Single Judge accepted the
application under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. and passed a decree for
eviction. Aggrieved against the said order, the present Special Leave
Petition has been filed.
A caveat was filed on behalf of plaintiff- respondent No.1.
Therefore, both the parties were heard at length. They have also filed
their written submissions.
The only question that needs to be determined in the
present case is whether there was a joint tenancy or an individual
tenancy. In order to decide this basic question we have to peruse the
lease deed which has been filed by the parties in the Court, the
execution and contents of which are not in dispute. The lease deed
recital reads as under :
" LEASE DEED
This lease deed made this 4th day of Sept.1977
between Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan wife of Shri
Madan Mohan Mahajan, r/oAsandh Road,
Panipat, hereinafter called the lessor (which
expression shall include unless repugnant to the
context its heirs, successors, executors,
administrators and assigns of the one part.
A N D
S/Shri Charanjit Lal Mehra, Ashok Kumar
Mehra, Ashwani Kumar Mehra and Yash Pal
Mehra all sons of late Shri Devi Dass Mehra r/o
G-25, N.D.S.E.I, New Delhi (hereinafter called
the lessees) which expression shall include
unless repugnant to the context its heirs,
successors, executors, administrators and
assigns and shall include partnership firms and
private limited companies in formation by the
partners of the above said firms of the other
part.
Whereas the Lessor has agreed to let out of the
"Showroom-on-Western side on the ground from
together with the entire lot on the verandah of
the commercial building No.E-1 and E-2 (facing
main Ring Road) in the New Delhi South
Extension Part-II, Market, New Delhi known as
Mahajan House, measuring about 1200 sq.ft
and bounded as under:-
North Main Ring Road
South Shop No.E-3
East- Showroom of Escorts & Modelle
West Verandah and Road.
Hereinafter referred to as the "Deemed
Premises".
And whereas the Lessees have agreed to take
the demised premises on lease on the
covenants and conditions mutually agreed to
and appearing hereinafter:
NOW THIS DEED OF LEASE WITNESSETH
AS UNDER:
In consideration of the rent hereby reserved and
the covenants hereinafter contained to be
observed and performed, the "Lessor" do hereby
grant to the Lessees ALL THAT the aforesaid
demised premises more particularly shown in
the plan annexed hereto on a monthly rent of
Rs.2500 (Rs.Two thousand five hundred only).
The above stipulated rent will include the ground
rent ( if any) house tax and all other Government
and Municipal Corporation rates, charges and
taxes of all kinds which are payable by the
lessor as owner or which may be levied by any
Authority hereinafter on the Lessor as owner. All
the taxes and all other Govt. and Municipal
rates, charges and taxes of all kinds shall be
payable by the Lessor.
Xx xx xx."
A perusal of the lease deed clearly shows that the demised premises
was taken on monthly rent of Rs.2500/- by the sons of Late Devi
Dass Mehra i.e. all the four brothers and it further says as follows:
" And whereas the Lessees have agreed to
take the demised premises on lease on the
covenants and conditions mutually agreed to
and appearing.."
Therefore, it clearly stipulates that this lease deed has been executed
in favour of all the brothers jointly and it is a composite one and not
individual one. Detailed perusal of the lease deed leaves no manner
of doubt in the matter that this was a composite and joint tenancy and
it was executed on behalf of the landlady on the one side and all the
four brothers on the other side. The rent stipulated in the lease deed
is Rs.2500/- in toto. It is not disputed that the total rent now payable is
more than Rs.3500/-. It cannot be split up into four portions so as to
bring the building within the fold of Rent Act. Therefore, we are of
opinion that the tenancy in question was a joint/ composite one and it
is not an individual lease of the demised premises which is a show
room and the defendants had to pay the rent jointly. This was the only
basic question which needed to be determined and the learned
Single Judge of the High Court has correctly appreciated the matter.
The letters exchanged do not in any way demolish the admissions
flowing from the lease deed which is the primary document.
Learned counsel made an alternative submission that the
revision petition was not maintainable and the lease deed is not
registered one and therefore, it is not maintainable. None of these
objections were raised by the defendants before the learned Single
Judge. Even before the trial court, the non-registration of lease deed (
which did not prescribe any term) was not put in issue. It is only
devised now to some how defeat and delay the eviction and
possession of the premises to the landlady. . In fact, Order XII Rule
6, C.P.C. is enacted for the purpose of and in order to expedite the
trials if there is any admission on behalf of the defendants or an
admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the
case without any dispute; then, in such a case in order to expedite
and dispose of the matter such admission can be acted upon. In the
present case, looking at the terms of lease deed, there can be no
two opinions that the tenancy was joint/ composite and not individual
one. Therefore, on these admitted facts the view taken by learned
Single Judge of the High Court appears to be justified. In this
connection, a reference may be made to a decision of this Court in
the case of Uttam Singh Duggal & Co.Ltd. vs. United Bank of India
& Ors. reported in (2000) 7 SCC 120. Their Lordships have held as
follows:
" In the Objects and Reasons set out
while amending Rule 6 of Order 12 CPC it is
stated that "where a claim is admitted, the court
has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the
plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim.
The object of the Rule is to enable the party to
obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent
of the relief to which according to the admission
of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled."
The Supreme Court should not unduly narrow
down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to
enable a party to obtain speedy judgment."
Therefore, in the present case, as appearing to us, there is a clear
admission on behalf of the defendants that there existed a
relationship of landlord and tenants, the rent is more than Rs.3500/-
and the tenancy is joint and composite one. As such on these
admitted facts, there is no two opinion in the matter and the view
taken by the learned Single Judge of the High Court appears to be
correct and there is no ground to interfere in this Special Leave
Petition and the same is dismissed.
