The Chief District Medical Officer and Others vs Sh. Roshan Lal Makkar

Valmiki J Mehta, J.

C.M. No. 3988/2011 (Exemption) in RFA No. 119/2011

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

RFA No. 119/2011

I am forced to begin dictation of the judgment in this case by a remark that an arm of the State which makes the law feels that it is above the laws of the country. The settled legal position in Delhi is that with respect to premises which are not governed by Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the tenancy can be terminated by a legal notice and on such termination of tenancy, the tenant becomes an unauthorized occupant of the tenanted premises and is liable to vacate the same. In fact, the Legislature amended Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 recently so as to take away technical objections of serving the legal notice of termination of tenancy and which amendment was made applicable to all pending proceedings. The facts of the case however show the action of the Appellants who are the Director of the Directorate of Health Services of Government of NCT of Delhi, the Directorate itself of the Government of NCT of Delhi, the Secretary of the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Chief District Medical Officer, is to still claim to be entitled to continue in possession of the premises with respect to which tenancy has been terminated.

The facts of the case are that the Appellants (basically the Directorate of Health Services of Government of NCT of Delhi) became a tenant of the first floor of the property X-978, Chand Mohalla, Raghbarpura, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi through an unregistered lease deed for a period from 1.7.2005 to 31.7.2010. The monthly rent was Rs. 17,008/-. The landlord terminated the tenancy by means of a legal notice dated 30.9.2009 inasmuch as the tenancy was a monthly tenancy under an unregistered lease deed and which notice was duly replied to by the Defendant No. 2 vide reply dated 27.10.2009. In any case, as per the paper book filed in this case it is shown that the notice terminating the tenancy was addressed to as many as four persons, namely, the Secretary of the Directorate of Health Services, the Director of the Directorate of Health services, the Chief District Medical Officer, East District and the Medical Officer of the concerned dispensary situated in the subject premises. The registered post receipts showing dispatch of the legal notice terminating the tenancy have also been filed at page 36 of the paper book and the UPC certificate in respect thereof have been filed at page 37. As already stated, the legal notice terminating tenancy was duly replied to vide reply dated 27.10.2009 by the office Superintendent, Court Cases Cell of the Directorate of Health Services, Government of NCT of Delhi.

In view of the above, the trial Court by the impugned judgment and decree has decreed the suit of the landlord/Plaintiff under Order 12(6) CPC for possession of the premises on the ground that the admitted rate of rent being Rs. 17,008/- per month i.e. more than Rs. 3500/- per month and therefore there was no protection of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and since the lease deed was only an unregistered lease deed the tenancy was a only a monthly tenancy which could be and was terminated by means of a legal notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The notice of termination of tenancy dated 30.9.2009 was sent to as many as four authorities and in fact it was duly replied to vide reply dated 27.10.2009 by the Court Cases Cell of the Directorate of Health Services of the Government of the NCT of Delhi.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant wanted me to look at the terms of the lease deed that the notice has not been served upon the authority as specified in the lease deed. I find the argument very surprising coming from the Government of NCT of Delhi because not only the legal notice has been served not on one but as many as four authorities but the same was in fact was duly replied to vide reply dated 27.10.2009 as already stated above. In any case, terms of an unregistered lease deed, cannot be looked into by claiming such terms to be a collateral purpose in terms of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. Looking at the issue from any manner whatsoever the notice terminating tenancy was validly served.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants also sought to argue that the landlord/Plaintiff in his suit itself stated that he did not know whether the notice of tenancy was served or not, however, this argument overlooks the fact that the trial Court has duly noted that the legal notice terminating the tenancy dated 30.9.2009 was duly replied to by the reply dated 27.10.2009 as stated above. Also, taking into account the recent amendment to Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which provides that there should be no defence of technicality of service of notice once more than 15 days time is given before filing of the suit, I hold that the suit ought not to fail for alleged non-service of notice. Also, I must add that after all copy of notice terminating tenancy has also been served alongwith the suit and there can be no issue that 15 days have not expired thereafter. This contention of the counsel for the Appellant is therefore rejected that no notice terminating the tenancy was served.

In view of the above, I do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. There are no disputed questions of facts which require summoning of the trial Court record.

The appeal is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

C.M. No. 3987/2011 in RFA No. 119/2011

Since the main appeal has been dismissed, no orders are required to be passed in this application which is disposed of as such.