IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suit No. 788 of 1990
Decided On: 20.02.1994
Appellants: P.S. Bedi
Respondent: The Project & Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. Hon'ble Judges: P.N. Nag, J.
Counsels: A.S. Chadha and Bharat Deepak, Advs
Subject: Law of Evidence
Acts/Rules/Orders: Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 106 Cases Referred:
L. Bhagwan Das v. Union of India, AIR 61 J&K 39; Bakshi Sachdev v. Concord, 1993 RLR 563; Shyam Chran v. Sheoji Bhai, AIR 1977 SC 2270; Ram Pasricha v. Jagnnath, AIR 1976 SC 2335; Pooran Chand v. Motilal, AIR 164 SC 461; Union of India v. RR Hingorani, 1987 1 SCC 551; Atyam Veerraja v. Pechatti Venkanna, AIR 166 SC 629 Case Note:
Interpretaion of documents - Lease deed-period of lease can not be infinite by mere provision of renewal every three years when lease was for specific period.
Tort - Damages/mesne profits-for illegal occupation of premises after tenancy came to an end after efflux of time-can be granted at a higher rate provided it is not penal or unconscionble-market rate proved by oral evidence-damages granted.
Title - Challange to the title of Landlord-can not be made by a tenant in a suit for possession, in view of Section 116 of Evidence Act.
Transfer of Property Act- Section 106--notice under-is not required where the tenancy stood terminated by efflux of time.
(1) The facts set out in the plaint are that the plaintiff is the owner of the properly knownasflatNo.9-B,Hansalaya Building, 15,BarakhambaRoad,NewDelhi-l 10001. The aforementioned premises, which has a covered area of 1333 sq. ft. on the 9th floor in Hansalaya Building, as marked "B" in the plan was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant as monthly tenant initially at the rate of Rs.5.50 per ft. per month i.e. Rs.7331.50 per month from 30.4.1976 on the terms reduced in writing vide registered lease dated 6.6.1977. vide Registered No.2261, book No-3816 on pages 84-87 dated23.6.1977. The said lease deed contemplated the tenancy for a period of three years commencing on 30.4.1977. The tenancy was thereafter extended twice, once unilaterally by the defendant and second time by mutual consent, each time for a period of three years in terms of the said lease deed. The rate of rent was increased with every renewal. During the first period of three years the rent was Rs.7331.50per month from 30.4.1977 to 29.4.1980 and the for the second period of renewal from 30.4.1980 till 29.4.1983 was Rs.8,431.22per month: and for the next period of renewal from 30.4.1983 till 29.4.1986 it was Rs.9,690.91 per month and for the period from 30.4.1986 till 29.4.1989, it wasRs.ll,143.88 per month. On the expiry of the period of tenancy w.e.f. 29.4.1986. the defendant negotiated for further renewal of the lease for a period of three years to which the plaintiff was not agreeable. The defendant, Therefore, offered to give a solemn undertaking to vacate as soon as new Slate Trading Corporation Building was ready for occupation. The tenancy was then renewed for the last lime in June, 1986. subject to the undertaking of the defendant that it would vacate the said premises as soon as the new Stale Trading Corporation Building at Janpath would he ready for occupation. Such an undertaking was given in writing and communicated to the plaintiff by the letter of the defendant dated 29.7.1986. Although the State Trading Corporation Building was got completed around the middle of 1988 but the defendant did not honour its undertaking and did not vacate the said premises. The plaintiff vide her letter dated 19.12.1988 requested the defendant to honour its undertaking to vacate the said premises, which was not vacated. However, the defendant unilaterally in violation of the lease deed attempted to renew the tenancy vide its letter dated 6.1.1989 purporting to be a three months notice for the renewal of the tenancy in terms of clause 111(1) of the lease. The defendant could not unilaterally....
Bibliography: * Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd
Please join StudyMode to read the full document