http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil)  20914 of 2004

PETITIONER: Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors.

RESPONDENT: Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/03/2005

BENCH: P.VENKATARAMA REDDI & A.K. MATHUR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

A.K. MATHUR, J.                    

               This Special Leave Petition is filed against an order dated  August 25,2004 passed by  the learned Single Judge of the High  Court of Delhi at New Delhi whereby learned Single Judge has set  aside the order dated February 13,2004 passed by the trial court   whereby  the trial court declined to pass an order of eviction moved  by the plaintiff  under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure  (hereinafter to be referred to as "C.P.C.") and observed that  the  application made at this stage is not maintainable and the suit  shall  be decided recording necessary evidence of the parties in order to do  complete justice and dismissed the application of the plaintiff filed  under Order XII Rule 6, C.P.C. Hence the present  revision was filed  before the High Court. The said revision application came to be  disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on August  25, 2004.

               In order to dispose of the present petition, brief facts may  be detailed herein.  Respondent No.1 filed a suit for eviction, arrears  of rent and damages/ mesne profit against the defendant-petitioners  alleging therein that the premises in question was let out to the  defendant- petitioners jointly on a monthly rent of Rs.2500/- vide  agreement dated September 4, 1977. The tenancy commenced with  effect from October 1, 1977. The rent was increased from time to time  at the rate of 10 per cent  per month. For the period from September  1, 1998 to August 31, 2001 the defendant- petitioners paid rent at the  rate of Rs.3327/- per month.  On July 28,2001 the plaintiff-respondent  No.1 served a notice on the defendant- petitioners under Section 6A   read with Section 8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ( hereinafter  to be referred to as " the Act"), notifying therein that the rent would be  increased  by 10 per cent with effect from September 1,2001.   Since  the monthly rent of the demised premises became Rs. 3659/- which  is more than Rs.3500/-with effect from September 1,2001,  the  provisions of the Act ceased to apply to the demised premises.  The  plaintiff- respondent No.1 then terminated the tenancy of the  defendant-petitioners by separate legal notice dated October 8,2001.  The said notice was duly served on the defendant- petitioners by  registered post with acknowledgment due on October 11,2001. The  plaintiff-respondent No.1 thereupon filed the suit for recovery of  possession as well as for recovery of arrears of rent for the month of  September & October, 2001 and pendente lite and future  interest   and mesne profit/ damages at the rate of Rs.40,000/-.  

       The suit was contested by  the defendant- petitioners by filing  written statement. The defendants did not dispute the existence of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also  admitted that the tenancy commenced from October 1,1977 on a  monthly rent of Rs.2500/- under rent note dated September 4,1977.   The rent was increased from time to time by serving notice under  Section 6A of the Act. Service of notice dated July 28,2001 under  Section 6A of the Act and notice dated 8th October, 2004 under  Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not denied. The  defence put in by the defendant-petitioners was that  the tenancy was  not a joint one but it was a separate, independent and distinct  tenancy of the four individuals and they were liable to pay rent  individually. In their written statement they also made a reference to  letters dated August 3,1992 and September 17,1992, which  according to the defendants,  supported their version that they were  separate, independent and distinct tenants. It was pointed out that in  the communication made by the plaintiff on September 17,1992 the  plaintiff refused to accept the cheque for a sum of Rs. 42,000/- as it  was tendered on behalf of one of the defendants only. But later on  the plaintiff accepted the cheque on March 24,1994 for a sum of  Rs.60,000/- which was tendered on behalf of all four defendants. This  according to the defendants, indicated that the plaintiff herself treated  the defendants as separate tenants. It was also contended that the  defendants’ individual share of rent never reached the figure of  Rs.3,500/-.  Therefore, the question of non-applicability of the  provisions of the Act does not arise. The defendants did not dispute  their liability to pay the arrears of rent from September, 2004 but they  denied the liability to pay damages/ mesne profits.                   The main thrust of the defendants was that this tenancy which  was entered into between the plaintiff and the four defendants  namely;  Sh Charanjit Lal Mehra, Sh. Ashok Kumar Mehra, Sh.  Aswini Kumar Mehra and Sh.Yashpal Mehra was  not a joint tenancy   but it was an individual tenancy and each one of them had to pay his  share towards the rent. Therefore, it was not a joint/ common tenancy  and as such the quantum  of rent of each individual tenant  did not  exceed Rs.3500/- per month. It was also contended that the notice  under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has been taken to  be one whereas there should have been four separate notices for  four separate tenancies and this single notice cannot terminate the  four tenancies.

       From the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed certain  issues and when the case was at the stage of evidence an  application under Order XII Rule 6 was filed by the plaintiff on April  26,2002  for passing a judgment on the admission made in the  pleadings. This application was opposed by the defendants by  filing  a detailed reply and a plea taken  was that it was not a joint tenancy  and  it was individual tenancy and each one of the tenants has to pay  rent at the rate of Rs.625/-.  However, learned trial court did not  decide  this issue and felt that the same be decided after evidence  was adduced and therefore, dismissed the  said application.   Aggrieved against the said order, a revision application was filed  before the High Court and the learned Single Judge of the  High  Court after hearing the parties  and examining the matter in detail  came to the conclusion that the admitted facts are that (i)  there  existed the relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties  which is created by the lease deed executed on 4th September 1997;  (ii)  notice of termination under Section 106 of the Transfer of  Property Act has been duly served and notice for enhancement of  rent from time to time under Section 6A of the Act had also been  served; (iii) the rate of rent exceeded Rs.3500/- per month when the  notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served;  (iv)  the rent was always tendered on behalf of all four brothers and  not individually on behalf of any of them.  Learned Single Judge of  the High Court examined the matter in detail and found that in fact  there was a common/ composite tenancy and not individual tenancy

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

created in favour of four defendants each. Learned Single Judge also  referred to certain communications referred to by appellants. One of  the communications was of the  date August 19,1992 when a cheque  for a sum of Rs.42,500/- as arrears of rent was  tendered to the  respondent No.1- plaintiff for the period from April 1, 1991 to August  31,1992 and the cheque was signed by only one person i.e. Yashpal  Mehra. In this connection, the plaintiff wrote a letter on September  17,1992 that Yashpal Mehra is one of the tenants and he is not the  only tenant. From this letter an argument was sought to be raised that  this was not a composite tenancy but  it was an individual tenancy.   The learned Judge rightly commented that the letter did not indicate  that there were separate tenancies. In fact, in the said letter, Yashpal  Mehra was described as a co-tenant.  Subsequently when a cheque  for a sum of Rs.60,000/- was sent as  rent for the period from April 1,  1991 to May 31, 1993 the same was accepted by the landlady vide  receipt dated May 24,1993. This cheque was tendered on behalf of  the four brothers. Therefore, the argument is advanced on the basis  of the letter dated September 17,1992 that it is not a case of  admission as the plaintiff herself treated it as a separate tenancy.   The learned Single Judge examined the matter and found that this  subsequent cheque of Rs.60,000/- was sent on behalf of four  brothers. Therefore, one isolated letter does not change the character  of the tenancy and accordingly,  learned Single Judge found that  there is admission on the part of the defendants that there is a joint  tenancy and the rent exceeded more than Rs.3500/-. Therefore, on  the admission of the defendants, learned Single Judge accepted the  application under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. and passed a decree for  eviction. Aggrieved against the said order, the present Special Leave  Petition has been filed.

       A caveat was filed on behalf of plaintiff- respondent No.1.  Therefore, both the parties were heard at length. They have also filed  their written submissions.

       The only question that needs to be determined  in the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          present case  is whether there was a joint tenancy or an individual  tenancy. In order to decide this basic question we have to peruse the  lease deed which has been filed by the parties in the Court, the  execution and contents of which are not in dispute.  The lease deed  recital reads as under : "    LEASE DEED This lease deed made this 4th day of Sept.1977  between Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan wife of Shri  Madan Mohan Mahajan, r/oAsandh Road,  Panipat, hereinafter called the lessor (which  expression shall include unless repugnant to the  context its heirs, successors, executors,  administrators and assigns of the one part. A N D S/Shri Charanjit Lal Mehra, Ashok Kumar  Mehra, Ashwani Kumar Mehra and Yash Pal  Mehra all sons of late Shri Devi Dass Mehra r/o  G-25, N.D.S.E.I, New Delhi (hereinafter called  the lessees) which expression shall include  unless repugnant to the context its heirs,  successors, executors, administrators and  assigns and shall include partnership firms and  private limited companies in formation by the  partners of the above said firms of the other  part. Whereas the Lessor has agreed to let out of the  "Showroom-on-Western side on the ground from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

together with the entire lot on the verandah of  the commercial building No.E-1 and E-2 (facing  main Ring Road) in the New Delhi South  Extension Part-II, Market, New Delhi known as  Mahajan House, measuring about 1200 sq.ft  and bounded as under:- North Main Ring Road      South Shop No.E-3 East- Showroom of Escorts & Modelle West Verandah and Road. Hereinafter referred to as the "Deemed  Premises".

And whereas the Lessees have agreed to take  the demised premises on lease on the  covenants and conditions mutually agreed to  and appearing hereinafter:

NOW THIS DEED OF LEASE WITNESSETH  AS UNDER:

In consideration of the rent hereby reserved and  the covenants hereinafter contained to be  observed and performed, the "Lessor" do hereby  grant to the Lessees ALL THAT the aforesaid  demised premises more particularly shown in  the plan annexed hereto on a monthly rent of  Rs.2500 (Rs.Two thousand five hundred only).

The above stipulated rent will include the ground  rent ( if any) house tax and all other Government  and Municipal Corporation rates, charges and  taxes of all kinds which are payable by the  lessor as owner or which may be levied by any  Authority hereinafter on the Lessor as owner. All  the taxes and all other Govt. and Municipal  rates, charges and taxes of all kinds shall be  payable by the Lessor.

                       Xx              xx              xx."

A perusal  of the lease deed clearly shows that the demised premises  was taken on monthly  rent of Rs.2500/-  by the sons of Late Devi  Dass Mehra i.e. all the four brothers and it further says as follows:         " And whereas the Lessees have agreed to  take the demised premises on lease on the  covenants and conditions mutually agreed to  and appearing.."

Therefore, it clearly stipulates that this lease deed has been executed  in favour of all the brothers jointly and it is a composite one and not  individual one.  Detailed perusal of the lease deed leaves no manner  of doubt in the matter that this was a composite and joint tenancy and  it was executed on behalf of the landlady on the one side and all the  four brothers on the other side.  The rent stipulated in the lease deed  is Rs.2500/- in toto. It is not disputed that the total rent now payable is  more than Rs.3500/-. It cannot be split up into four portions so as to  bring the building within the fold of Rent Act. Therefore, we are of  opinion that  the tenancy in question was a joint/ composite one and it  is not an individual lease of the demised premises which is a show  room and the defendants had to pay the rent jointly. This was the only  basic question which needed to be determined and the learned  Single Judge of the High Court has correctly appreciated the matter.  The letters exchanged do not in any way demolish the admissions  flowing from the lease deed which is the primary document.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

       Learned counsel made an alternative submission that the  revision petition was not maintainable and  the lease deed is not  registered one and therefore,  it is not maintainable. None of these  objections were raised by the defendants before the learned Single  Judge. Even before the trial court, the non-registration of lease deed (  which did not prescribe any term) was not put in issue.  It is only  devised now to some how  defeat and delay the eviction and  possession of the premises to the landlady.  . In fact, Order XII Rule  6, C.P.C. is enacted for the purpose of and  in order to expedite  the  trials if there is any admission on behalf of the defendants or an  admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the  case without any dispute; then, in such a case in order to expedite  and dispose of the matter such admission can be acted upon. In the  present case,  looking at the terms of lease deed, there can be  no  two opinions that the tenancy was joint/ composite and not individual  one. Therefore, on these admitted facts the view taken by learned  Single Judge of the High Court appears to be justified. In this  connection, a reference may be made to a  decision of this Court in  the case of  Uttam Singh Duggal & Co.Ltd.  vs.  United  Bank of India  & Ors. reported in (2000) 7 SCC 120. Their Lordships have held as  follows:

               " In the Objects and Reasons set out  while amending Rule 6 of Order 12 CPC it is  stated that "where a claim is admitted, the court  has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the  plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim.  The object of the Rule is to enable the party to  obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent  of the relief to which according to the admission  of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled."         The Supreme Court should not unduly narrow  down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to  enable a party to obtain speedy judgment."

Therefore, in the present case, as appearing to us, there is a clear  admission on behalf of the defendants that there existed a  relationship of landlord and tenants, the rent is more than Rs.3500/-  and the tenancy is joint and composite one. As such on these  admitted facts, there is no two opinion in the matter and the view  taken by the learned Single Judge of the High Court appears to be  correct and there is no ground to interfere in this Special Leave  Petition and the same is dismissed.