The decree for the possession of the flat owned by the Respondent (Landlord) was challenged by the Appellant (Tenant) under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the case Pradeep Khanna v. RenuKhetarpal.
Facts of the case:
- There was a vide registered agreement dated 26th September 2007 between the respondent (Landlord) and appellant (Tenant) to let out the “suit property” for two years w.e.f. 1st October 2007 to 30th September 2009 at a monthly rent of Rs. 8,500/-. Also, there was a separate agreement executed between the parties dated 26th September 2007, whereby the appellant agreed to pay user charges of ?10,000/- per month for the fittings and fixtures.
- Even after the expiry of two year period of the lease, the lease was orally renewed on a month to month basis, increasing the rent to ?11,000/- per month and hire charges for fittings and fixtures to ?11,350/- per month. Hence, there was no rent escalation clause in the registered agreement.
- On 26th October 2013, a vide notice was sent by the respondent to the appellant by registered AD post as well as courier, notifying the appellant about arrears of rent and hire charges up to 30th November 2013 and called upon to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property.
- The appellant denied the respondent’s claim of rent and hire charges which obliged the respondent to apply for the decree of possession of suit property. The Trial court allowed the respondent’s application.
- The appellant (Tenant) challenged the decree for possession of flat belonging to the respondent (Landlord) passed by the learned Trial Court against the appellant Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- The appellant contended that an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs had been spent on repair work and after adjusting the same; the rent stands paid up to December 2014 and further submitted that notice of termination is not valid under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
- The court observed that certain tenants, in this country, consider it an inherent right not to vacate the premises even after the expiry of the tenancy period by efflux of time or after their tenancy is terminated through a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The tenants who illegally continue to occupy the tenanted premises by raising frivolous defences should be appropriately burdened with penal costs because this results in dishonest and unnecessary litigations causing huge strain on the judicial system.
- The amount spent by the appellant on repair work falls under the “major repairs” clause. Hence, the respondent (Landlord) is obliged to carry it out but the same has not been discussed by the tenant to the landlord and was carried by own. Therefore, cannot claim the defence based on the amount spent by the tenant on repair work and escape from their liability.
- The imposition of actual, realistic, or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. The cost should be equal to the benefits derived by the litigants, and the harm and deprivation suffered by the right person to check the frivolous litigations and prevent the people from reaping a rich harvest of illegal acts through Court. The court may order prosecution if it is possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings
- It was also observed by the Court that in order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the Courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled litigation.
- Truth is the Foundation of the Justice and Section 165 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, casts a duty on the Judge to discover truth to do complete justice and empowers him to summon, examine, recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential in decision of the matter in the case.
On careful observations, it was held that after applying the well-settled principles of law, there is a clear admission of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as well as the termination of the tenancy by a valid notice dated 26th October 2013 and therefore, the respondent is entitled to the decree for possession of the suit property under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Also, the appellant has to deposit the cost(arrears) within 10 days before the Execution Court along with an undertaking to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the respondent. Hence, the appeal was dismissed on the merit and the tenant was required to make an undertaking for handing over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the respondent within the stipulated time ordered by the Court.