Anita Suri vs Textile Committee and Another

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—By this application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, the plaintiff has asked for passing

a decree for recovery of possession of the premises involved in the above suit on the basis of admissions made by the defendant in the WS.

The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and other reliefs in respect of the premises comprising of ground, mezzanine, first, second and

third floor at 41 Community Centre, Naraina, Phase-I, New Delhi on the ground the lease of the premises was given in 1985 and thereafter it was

renewed from time to time. The last renewal of the lease for a period of 3 years was effective from 1st May, 2005 till 30th April, 2008 at a

monthly rent of Rs. 1,12,000/- for the entire premises. The lease expired on 30th April, 2008. There was no agreement between the plaintiff and

the defendant No. 1 with regard to the renewal of lease despite exchange of correspondence between them and defendant No. 1 did not agree to

the terms as offered by the plaintiff for renewal of this. Thus, the lease of defendant No. 1 stood terminated by afflux of time. Defendant No. 1 did

not hand over the possession of the premises. Thereafter a notice dated 21st May, 2008 was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1

specifically terminating the lease of the defendant in respect of property on the expiry of notice period, i.e., midnight of 30th June, 2008 and 1st

July, 2008. Despite notice, the defendant failed to vacate the premises. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession, for mesne

profits/damages from 1st May, 2008 onwards @ Rs. 9,60,000/-, pendent lite interest and future interest.

In the written statement, the defendant No. 1 had taken objections that defendant No. 2 was not a necessary party and has been wrongly made

as a party on merits. It was not denied that the premises in question was under tenancy of defendant No. 1 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,12,000/-. It

is also not denied that the tenancy came to an end on 30th April, 2008 by afflux of time. Rather it is stated in the WS that the defendant Order 1

sent, on 14th March, 2008, a legal notice for renewal of the lease agreement in response to which, the plaintiff sent a letter dated 24th March,

2008 therein quoting market rate of the rent for renewal of the tenancy. This market rate of the rent as quoted by the plaintiff was not acceptable to

the defendant No. 1. A meeting was held between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 on 8th April, 2008 regarding rent. The rent offered by

defendant No. 1 was not acceptable to the plaintiff. Thereafter, a notice was received from the plaintiff through her Advocate terminating the

tenancy.

The preliminary objections taken by the respondent is that suit was not maintainable in view of the fact that plaintiff had not served a notice to

the defendant u/s 80 of the CPC as required under law.

It is settled law when there is an unequivocal admission of 3 factors; i) existence of relationship of lesser and lessee in respect of suit property; ii)

the rent being more than Rs. 3500/- and iii) the determination of such relationship in any of the contingencies as envisaged in Section 111 of the

Transfer of Property Act, the suit for possession of premises is liable to be decreed even if such admission is not expressly made in the pleadings

and is made constructively through documents. In the present case, all the three above admissions have been made in the WS by the defendant.

There is no dispute about the relationship of landlord and tenant, the rent being above Rs. 3500/- and the tenancy having come to an end by afflux

of time as well as by express determination through a legal notice by the plaintiff. I therefore consider that the application of the plaintiff under

Order 12 Rule 6 is liable to be allowed.

Counsel for the defendant, however raised objection regarding non-service of a notice u/s 80 of CPC. I consider that this objection is not

tenable. It is the case of the defendant No. 1 itself that defendant No. 2, Union of India was not a necessary party and has been wrongly made as

a party by the plaintiff and it was only defendant No. 1 who was tenant and was a necessary party. No doubt defendant No. 1, the Textile

Committee was constituted under the Textile Act, 1963 and therefore is a legislative creature that does not mean that in order to file a suit for

possession against the Textile Committee, in respect of the premises let out to it, Section 80 CPC notice is required to be given to the Union of

India. A notice u/s 80 CPC is given so that unnecessary litigation is avoided and if the claim of the plaintiff is lawful, the government

body/defendant without forcing the plaintiff to go to the Court should consider the claim and redress the grievance of the respondent.

In the present case, the lease deed between the parties came to an end on 30th April, 2008 by afflux of time, the defendant thereafter had

sufficient notice that it has to vacate the premises since the plaintiff had refused to renew the lease. The defendant had no option but to vacate the

premises but the defendant did not do so. Therefore, the plaintiff has to serve a notice on the defendant terminating the lease with effect from

midnight of 30th June, 2008 that also did not stir the defendant for vacating the premises. I consider that no separate notice u/s 80 was required to

be served upon the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 had sufficient notice to act according to law. Since it failed to act according to law, the

plaintiff was forced to file this suit.

I allow the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC filed by the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed in following terms:

a decree of possession in respect of premises comprising of ground, mezzanine, first, second and third floor at 41 Community Centre, Naraina,

Phase-I, New Delhi is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No. 1

CS(OS) No. 1373/2008

The suit shall proceed further in respect of rest of the claims filed by the plaintiff. The matter be sent to the regular Bench for further proceedings.

Parties to appear before the regular Bench on 4th May, 2009.