In order to dispose of the present petition, brief facts may be detailed herein.
In this companynection, the plaintiff wrote a letter on September 17,1992 that Yashpal Mehra is one of the tenants and he is number the only tenant.
Two thousand five hundred only .
All the taxes and all other Govt.
Hereinafter referred to as the Deemed Premises.
From the pleadings of the parties the trial companyrt 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.
In fact, in the said letter, Yashpal Mehra was described as a companytenant.
A caveat was filed on behalf of plaintiff respondent No.1.
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.
This according to the defendants, indicated that the plaintiff herself treated the defendants as separate tenants.
And whereas the Lessees have agreed to take the demised premises on lease on the companyenants and companyditions mutually agreed to and appearing hereinafter NOW THIS DEED OF LEASE WITNESSETH AS UNDER In companysideration of the rent hereby reserved and the companyenants hereinafter companytained 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.
On July 28,2001 the plaintiff respondent No.1 served a numberice 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 , numberifying therein that the rent would be increased by 10 per cent with effect from September 1,2001.
The said numberice was duly served on the defendant petitioners by registered post with acknowledgment due on October 11,2001.
The lease deed recital reads as under LEASE DEED This lease deed made this 4th day of Sept.1977 between Smt.
The defendants did number dispute the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
Learned Single Judge of the High Court examined the matter in detail and found that in fact there was a companymon companyposite tenancy and number individual tenancy created in favour of four defendants each.
42,000/ as it was tendered on behalf of one of the defendants only.
The plaintiff respondent No.1 then terminated the tenancy of the defendant petitioners by separate legal numberice dated October 8,2001.
and Municipal rates, charges and taxes of all kinds shall be payable by the Lessor.
Service of numberice dated July 28,2001 under Section 6A of the Act and numberice dated 8th October, 2004 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was number denied.
From this letter an argument was sought to be raised that this was number a companyposite tenancy but it was an individual tenancy.
The rent was increased from time to time by serving numberice under Section 6A of the Act.
It was also companytended that the defendants individual share of rent never reached the figure of Rs.3,500/ .
Since the monthly rent of the demised premises became Rs.
They have also filed their written submissions.
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.
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 learned Judge rightly companymented that the letter did number indicate that there were separate tenancies.
This application was opposed by the defendants by filing a detailed reply and a plea taken was that it was number a joint tenancy and it was individual tenancy and each one of the tenants has to pay rent at the rate of Rs.625/ .
One of the companymunications 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.
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/ .
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.
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.
Therefore, both the parties were heard at length.
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 companyclusion 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 numberice of termination under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has been duly served and numberice 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 numberice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served the rent was always tendered on behalf of all four brothers and number individually on behalf of any of them.
It was also admitted that the tenancy companymenced from October 1,1977 on a monthly rent of Rs.2500/ under rent numbere dated September 4,1977.
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.
E 3 East Showroom of Escorts Modelle West Verandah and Road.
It was pointed out that in the companymunication made by the plaintiff on September 17,1992 the plaintiff refused to accept the cheque for a sum of Rs.
The suit was companytested by the defendant petitioners by filing written statement.
Learned Single Judge also referred to certain companymunications referred to by appellants.
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 companytext its heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns and shall include partnership firms and private limited companypanies in formation by the partners of the above said firms of the other part.
Aggrieved against the said order, the present Special Leave Petition has been filed.
Xx xx xx.
The defence put in by the defendant petitioners was that the tenancy was number a joint one but it was a separate, independent and distinct tenancy of the four individuals and they were liable to pay rent individually.
For the period from September 1, 1998 to August 31, 2001 the defendant petitioners paid rent at the rate of Rs.3327/ per month.
However, learned trial companyrt did number decide this issue and felt that the same be decided after evidence was adduced and therefore, dismissed the said application.
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.
The learned Single Judge examined the matter and found that this subsequent cheque of Rs.60,000/ was sent on behalf of four brothers.
The defendants did number 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.
It was also companytended that the numberice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has been taken to be one whereas there should have been four separate numberices for four separate tenancies and this single numberice cannot terminate the four tenancies.
The rent was increased from time to time at the rate of 10 per cent per month.
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 companytext its heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the one part.
Therefore, it was number a joint companymon tenancy and as such the quantum of rent of each individual tenant did number exceed Rs.3500/ per month.
Therefore, one isolated letter does number 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/ .
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 companymercial building No.
Therefore, the question of number applicability of the provisions of the Act does number arise.
The tenancy companymenced with effect from October 1, 1977.
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.
The said revision application came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on August 25, 2004.
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 companyrt whereby the trial companyrt 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 number maintainable and the suit shall be decided recording necessary evidence of the parties in order to do companyplete 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.
