Inam Ali vs Sandeep Vasudev & Another

This revision is pending for hearing on the question of admission ever since the time of its presentation on 9.5.2016 before this Court either on the score of removing the defect or after removal of such defect, when the Court directed to deposit the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 3,08,000/-. Such order of this Court was challenged by way of filing the SLP No. 15437/2016 in the Hon''ble Apex Court which could not find favour in the order of Hon''ble Supreme Court dated 26.8.2016 and the tenant revisionist was directed to deposit the amount, as indicated above. Thereafter this revision could be taken up for hearing today in the Court and the learned Senior Counsel of the revisionist has submitted his arguments almost in details pointing out every miniscule irregularities and technicalities in issuing the tenancy termination notice dated 11.2.2013 as well as the authorisation letter entrusted by the owner of the demised premises (which is of two bedrooms and one drawing room in Dehradun city). This authorisation letter dated 11.6.2013 was to entrust his brother-in-law Mr. Praveen Malhotra to initiate the legal proceedings against the tenant as envisaged under Order 28 Rule 1 CPC.

Learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist has agitated the legality of this letter on the ground that it is unstamped and it should have been written either on the stamp of either Rs. 50/- or Rs. 100/- (whatever).

I think the said provision of the Civil Procedure Code does not conceive so. It has specially been made for the officers, soldiers, sailors or airmen, who cannot obtain leave, then they may authorise any person to sue and defend on their behalf in the Court. Such persons need not to fix any stamp.

Looking to the face of such authorisation letter, I do not find any infirmity in it and feel that on account of remote posting of Colonel Sandeep Vasudev, who purchased this house vide the sale deed dated 17.8.2005, had duly issued this letter in favour of Mr. Praveen Malhotra, his real bother-in-law, who resides in Dehradun. So, Mr. Praveen Malhotra has instituted the suit no. 41/2013 on 24.8.2013 as an authorised representative of Colonel Sandeep Vasudev.

Since certain pleadings were raised regarding the lease deed dated 1.5.2006 and technicalities in the notice dated 11.2.2013 terminating the tenancy, hence, Mr. M.R. Malhotra has also been impleaded vide order dated 22.1.2015, whereagainst Civil Revision No. 40/2015 was presented by the tenant in this Court. Said revision was dismissed on merits on 23.4.2015 by observing that filing of such revision was just a device so as to prolong the litigation launched by the landlord Colonel Sandeep Vasudev.

Indisputably, an unregistered lease deed was executed between Mr. M.R. Malhotra, father-in-law of Colonel Sandeep Vasudev, who was the care taker of the demised premises at that time and as such the landlord of the same, and Mr. Inam Ali. This lease deed entailed the subsisting tenancy w.e.f. 1.5.2006 to 1.4.2007, viz. only for 11 months, @ rupees five thousand per month.

So, it is abundantly clear that after 1.4.2007, Mr. Inam Ali was not an accepted valid tenant either of the landlord or the house owner. Mr. Inam Ali committed several irregularities in making the payment of rents which constrained the issuance of the notice dated 11.2.2013 and thereafter the suit was instituted for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction.

Learned Trial Judge vide the impugned judgment dated 29.4.2016 has decreed the suit for eviction as demanded in the notice dated 11.2.2013 and thereafter rent @ Rs. 5500/- per month up the date of institution of the suit and even thereafter @ Rs. 200/- per day till the date of eviction.

Learned Senior Counsel of the revisionist has drawn the attention of this Court towards the payment of rent which the tenant had made on account of several cheques of different amounts. Sometime it was even of Rs. 45,000/- or Rs. 50,000/- or Rs. 30,000/-, etc. It abundantly makes it clear that the defendant tenant was very very irregular in making the payment of rent. He was grossly indisciplined on this score and his tenancy was rightly terminated by a specific notice dated 11.2.2013. Besides, his tenancy automatically stood terminated after 1.4.2007.

I think the revisionist tenant is not entitled to any relief even under Section 140 of the Transfer of Property Act.

This revision has no force. It is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Calculation of all the arrears of rent as well as the mesne profit shall be made in the executing court by the respective Counsels.

All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.