Court No. - 26
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 66 of 2018
Revisionist :- Narayan Medicare Private Limited Opposite Party :- Jagat Hospital And Research Center Counsel for Revisionist :- Nipun Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rahul Mishra,Adarsh Bhushan
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(Oral).
1. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 16.05.2018 passed by the District Judge, Meerut in SCC Suit No. 11 of 2016 : Jagat Hospital and Research Center Private Limited Vs. Narayan Medicare Private Limited as well as the order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Meerut by means of which application No. 40-Ga filed under Section 10 of CPC read with Section 151 by the defendant-revisionist was rejected in SCC Suit No. 11 of 2016.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the lease deed on the basis of which the revisionist came into occupation of the property in question was registered on 05.08.2004 in the office of the Deputy Registrar, Meerut for a period of 10 years. The tenancy started w.e.f. 16.05.2004 and continued till 15.05.2014 at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month for a building with an area of 1140 square meters situated on the main road i.e. Garh Road opposite Amarapali Cinema Hall in the city of Meerut. During the subsistence of the said lease a suit for eviction was filed by the landlords in their personal capacity on 27.08.2008 which was dismissed on 15.04.2011 holding that the property in question belonged to the company and not to the landlords i.e. the three brothers and their mother who had filed such suit. It was also held that the three brothers and mother had no locus to file the said suit for eviction.
3. Against the decision of the learned Trial Court a First Appeal No. 257 of 2011 was filed, which was dismissed in default on 03.03.2016.
4. In the meantime, the lease expired on 15.05.2014. The landlord did not serve any notice for termination of lease and for delivery of vacant possession, but filed the present SCC Suit No. 11 of 2016 on 21.03.2016 and the learned Trial Court framed the Issue No. 1 to the effect “Whether on expiry of the lease period of 10 years as per the terms of the lease deed dated 05.08.2004 the plaintiff is entitled to get actual vacant possession of the property under the tenancy of the defendant?”
5. It has been argued that on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in M. Vijay Lakshmi Vs.
G. Govardhan Reddy, (1996) 3 Andh. LT 32, which was inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case the Issue No. 1 was decided in affirmative in favour of the landlord.
6. From a perusal of the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court it appears that in the said judgment of M. Vijay Lakhsmi (supra) a notice had been issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, which was found to be invalid and the Supreme Court had observed that under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act a lease deed for a fixed time period does not require any notice to be served. The defendant was duty bound to hand over vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff after expiry of term of lease for a fixed period.
7. The learned counsel for revisionist has argued on the basis of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act which has also been referred to in the findings of the learned Trial Court, that in this case after expiry of the lease on 15.05.2014 no notice was issued for termination of the tenancy and for delivery of vacant possession and straight way the SCC Suit No. 11 of 2016 was filed on 21st of March, 2016.
8. The learned Senior Counsel, Shri Navin Sinha, has argued that because the landlord has otherwise assented to the continued possession of the tenant over the property in question, it would amount to a holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act.
9. He has also argued that the learned Trial Court while decreeing the suit has wrongly directed the payment of damages @ Rs. 5,000/- per day with effect from the date of the order impugned till the date of handing over of the possession. Whereas, in the relief clause the plaintiffs themselves had prayed for Rs.4,50,000/- per month as damages for twenty two months w.e.f. 16.05.2014 till 21.03.2016. The direction to pay damages @ Rs.5,000/- per day would amount to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month which is a huge amount. For future damages also the rate fixed at Rs.10,000/- per day is exorbitant it is amounts to Rs. 3 lacs per month.
10. The learned counsel for respondent, Shri Rahul Mishra, on the other hand, has pointed out to this Court that it is admitted between the parties that a lease deed for only 10 years was signed on 05.08.2004 and was registered on the same day. The lease was to start w.e.f. 16.05.2004 and was to end on 15.05.2014. It was a fixed time period lease and in terms of Section 111 (a) of the Transfer of Property Act a lease of immovable property determines by efflux of time limit given therein.
11. In this case time limit fixed i.e. of ten years was to expire on 15.05.2014. In such cases notice is not required to be given for determination of the lease as the language of the Act itself makes it evidently clear that the lease of the immovable property is determined on the date of expiry of the lease itself.
12. It has also been argued by Shri Rahul Mishra that the story of holding over by the plaintiff-respondents is also false as the plaintiff-respondents were constantly trying to evict the tenant. Initially, a suit for arrears of rent and eviction was filed, which was dismissed as aforesaid by the learned Trial Court. The Suit No. 1168 of 2008 dismissed on 15.04.2011 as not maintainable as the Company was held to be the owner of the property and not the landlords in their personal capacity. With regard to the present suit, when the lease was about to end on 15.05.2014 a notice was issued to the tenant on 22.04.2014.
13. This fact of issuance of notice on 22.04.2014 is hotly disputed and the learned counsel for the respondent says that even if such notice dated 22.04.2014 is not admitted to the tenant, and may be ignored, the fact remains that the tenants filed a regular suit No. 544 of 2014 for a permanent injunction restraining the landlord from evicting them from the property in question. In this suit a temporary injunction was granted on 14.05.2015 by the learned Trial Court injuncting the landlords from evicting the tenant except by following due process of law.
14. Against the order dated 14.05.2015 the landlord filed a First Appeal From Order No. 1887 of 2015: Smt. Krishna Sharma and 4 others Vs. Dr. Sanjay Sharma and 8 others. This Court while disposing off the said appeal observed thus:-
“Record reveals that the dispute has its genesis on expiry of the lease period of the plaintiff-respondents who are in possession of the property as a tenant under defendants-appellants and the court below considering the facts and circumstances of the case granted temporary injunction to the plaintiff respondents and restrained the defendants appellants from evicting the plaintiffs respondents without following the due process of law. Therefore, the remedy to the landlord is only to file a suit for ejectment and get a formal order of ejectment on the expiry of the lease period in accordance with law.
In the circumstances, the defendants-appellants is advised to file a suit for ejectment which shall be heard and disposed of by the court below in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs respondents expeditiously.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly. No order as to costs in this appeal.” (Emphasis supplied)
15. This Court disposed off the matter on 22.07.2015 observing that the appellants may file a suit for ejectment which shall be heard and disposed off by the Trial Court in accordance with law after reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties.
16. It is after this First Appeal From Order No. 1887 of 2015 was disposed off in the aforesaid manner by this Court on 22.07.2015, that SCC Suit No. 11 of 2016 was filed by the plaintiff-respondents on 21.03.2016. Therefore, it cannot be said that by their conduct the plaintiff-respondents had otherwise assented to the continued possession of the property in dispute by the tenants.
17. With regard to the award of the damages the learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that on the basis of evidence on record it has come out that the adjoining property admeasuring 184 square yards only had been let out since 2015 @ Rs.1,13,000/- per month. On the other hand, the property in dispute admeasures 1140 square yards and has been in possession of the tenants even after termination of the lease on 16.05.2014 against the wishes of landlord. The landlord had to initiate litigation which continued for a period of two years.
18. Initially, Rs.10,000/- per month was agreed upon as rent in the lease deed in 2004. This lease came to an end on 15.05.2014. Taking in to account the measurements of the property in dispute i.e. 1140 square yards and the situation of the property on the main road called Garh Road in the city of the Meerut near Aamrapali Cinema the Trial Court has granted appropriate damages @ Rs.5,000/- per day, pendente lite i.e. from the date of institution of the suit on 21.03.2016 up to the date of decreeing the suit on 16.05.2018 and Rs.10,000/- per day as future damages for the period when the tenants continue to remain in possession of the property till the handing over of the possession of the said property to the plaintiff-respondents.
19. I have considered the arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the respondents. I find no case of holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act made out. The plaintiff-respondents had never assented in any manner to the continued possession of the tenants over the property in dispute and had taken all steps legally admissible to them by initiating the litigation in the matter. It is admitted case of the parties that the rent although deposited under Order 15 Rule 5 during the pendency of the said suit by the tenants was never accepted by the landlord.
20. I do not find any legal infirmity in the order impugned with regard to the damages that have been awarded by the learned Trial Court looking into the fact that the property in dispute admeasures 1140 square yards i.e. almost 11500 square feet of land on the main road in the city of Meerut. I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order impugned.
21. This revision is dismissed. No order as to costs.
22. At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel has requested for a reasonable time to vacate the property in question. Six months time, as prayed by the learned Senior Counsel is granted to the tenants to vacate the property in question subject to the tenants paying the entire decretal amount before the learned Trial Court and also subject to the condition that they shall pay damages @ Rs.10,000/- per day as determined the learned Trial Court till they deliver the vacant possession of the property in question to the plaintiff-respondents on or before 3rd of December, 2018. The entire decretal amount as aforesaid shall be deposited by the tenants before the learned Trial Court within a period of one month from today.
23. In case, the revisionists fail to deposit the entire decretal amount as well as the damages as awarded by the learned Trial Court and as directed by this order, it shall be open for the plaintiff-respondents to move execution proceedings for eviction of the tenants and also to initiate proceedings for contemptuous disregard of the order passed by this Court.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 LBY