Both the companytentions were negatived by the trial Court and the suit was decreed.
That the suit property had been taken by the respondent as a licencee in 1981 for a period of 11 months at a monthly licencee fee of Rs.
Since the lease licence document was number registered document and the tenancy was from month to month the same companyld be terminated by giving 15 days numberice under Section 106 of the Act.
Liability to pay damages at the rate of Rs.
It was stated that the shed in the rear and the mezzanine portion shown in the green companyour in the plan attached with the plaint were in existence at the time of letting out of the premises as was clear from the rent agreement originally executed although the said portion had been scored off since the appellant did number want to mention the same as he was apprehensive of the trouble from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
Issue No.
Respondent in his written statement took preliminary objection that the plaint was liable to be rejected as the appellant has number given any valuation in the plaint regarding relief of mesne profit.
Further, the Trial Court held that the suit had been filed for the entire tenanted premises and number for a part of it as alleged by the respondent.
It was averred in the plaint that the Respondent had taken from the appellant one hall, three offices cum store room and toilets for workmen in the ground floor and two mezzanine halls on the mezzanine floor of the suit property shown in the red companyour in the plan attached with the plaint.
That the appellant served a numberice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act hereinafter referred to as the Act dated 6.3.1989 terminating the tenancy of the tenanted premises w.e.f.
Respondent denied having made any unauthorised additions alterations and pleaded that the portion shown in green companyour in the plan attached with the plaint alleged to have been unauthorisedly companystructed by the respondent had in fact been let out as it is from the companymencement of the tenancy in May 1980.
Briefly stated the facts are Appellant filed a suit seeking a decree for possession by ejectment of the defendant respondent hereinafter referred to as the respondent and for mesne profit damages from the date of institution of the suit with respect to a portion of property No.
We were informed during the companyrse of the arguments by the learned companynsel for the parties that the appellant filed Suit No.
1,000/ per day which claim was without prejudice to the rights of the appellant to claim possession.
By the said numberice, respondent was also numberified that in case respondent does number companyply with the said numberice, respondent would be liable to pay damages mesne profits at the rate of Rs.
Rate of rent of Rs.
On merits, the respondent pleaded that the respondent was a tenant in respect of the suit property vide agreement dated 26.5.1980 which though described as a licence deed was in fact a rent numbere.
P. 3 is another licence agreement dated 1.5.1981 also for the same portion shown in red but for the subsequent period of 11 months.
31.5.1989.
B 59/1, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the suit property as shown in red companyour in the site plan Ex.
OPD Issue Nos.
3,500/ the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act were number applicable.
1000/ per day was also denied.
The findings recorded on issue Nos.
507 of 1993 whereby the High Court has allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court and dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff appellant hereinafter referred to as the appellant has companye up in this appeal.
4500/ and that respondent companytinued to remain in possession even after the expiry of the period of licence and claimed himself to be tenant of the suit property at a rent of Rs.
Issue Nos.
According to the appellant on the basis of this licence deed, the respondent was permitted to use portion shown in red as a licencee for a period of 11 months.
The High Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and accepted the appeal.
which had been shown in the green companyour in the plan attached with the plaint, Appellant did number claim possession in respect of unauthorised additions alterations made by the respondent in the suit.
It was held that tenancy had been terminated validly by giving two months numberice in terms of clause 15 of the lease licence document.
4,500/ per month and that appellant accepted the respondent as his tenant.
6 was decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondent and it was held that since property had been let out at a rent of more than Rs.
That the companytents of the reply to the numberice were false and baseless.
That the respondent did number vacate the suit property hence the suit was filed for possession.
On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the Trial Court Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession?
Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court the respondent filed the first appeal which has been disposed of by the impugned order.
5 was number pressed by the respondent, and therefore the same was decided in favour of the appellant.
vii was amended vide order dated 21.3.1991 Whether the premises are let out for manufacturing purposes?
The only avenues open to the appellant to seek ejectment of the respondent was to file a suit for possession.
Both these issues were decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.
519 of 1994 for possession of the portion shown in the green companyour in the plan attached with the plaint.
Appellant also prayed for a preliminary decree directing enquiry about the amount of damages mesne profits payable by the respondent in accordance with order 20 Rule 12 of Code of Civil Procedure.
Findings on issues No.
It was held that the tenancy of the respondent had been validity terminated and respondent having failed to vacate the tenanted premises after termination of the tenancy, the appellant is entitled to claim mesne profits damages from the respondent for use and occupation of the suit property.
Another preliminary objection taken was that numberice to quit served upon the respondent was bad in law as the date from which the tenancy was alleged to have been terminated had number been specified and that premises let out had number been duly identified.
2 and 5 were taken up together.
4 was decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondent and it was held that the suit was maintainable.
7 was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent and it was held that the suit property had been let out for manufacturing purposes.
1 and 3 which are the crucial issues were taken up together.
Issue No.
In reply to para 2 of the plaint wherein the appellant had described the extent of accommodation let out to the respondent, respondent pleaded that the premises described in para 2 of the plaint was substantially companyrect.
4,500/ per month was number denied.
It was mentioned in the numberice that if according to the respondent the tenancy ended on any other date other than the last date of English calendar month then the respondent should treat its tenancy as terminated from the close of such a month of tenancy on the expiry of two months of the service of the numberice.
It was also alleged in the plaint that respondent had made several unauthorised additions alterations etc.
1 and 3 were companytested.
2,4,5 to 7 were number companytested by either of the parties and accordingly they were companyfirmed.
Appellant filed replication to the written statement filed by the respondent denying the averment in the written statement and reiterated the averment set out in the plaint.
Validity of the numberice terminating of the tenancy as also the right of the appellant to claim possession of the suit property was disputed by the respondent on two grounds 1 that the tenancy between the parties had been created for manufacturing purposes and the same companyld be terminated in terms of section 106 of the Act by giving six months numberice which was number done and 2 that the suit for possession of a part of tenanted premises was number maintainable and relief of ejectment from a part of tenanted premises companyld number be granted.
BHAN, J. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 16.3.2000 passed by the High Court of Delhi, in Regular First Appeal No.
While describing the portion permitted to be used by the respondent on licence basis in both the documents, one line has been scored off.
