Krishna Rani Grower & Ors v. M/S Bata India Limited & Ors

INDERMEET KAUR, J MAY 10, 2016 A C.M. (M) No.603/2015 Page 12 ot 12

» IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % . Date ofJudgment: 10.05.2016 + CM(M) 603/2015 KRISHNA RANI GROWER & ORS Petitioners Through Mr. Sanjay S. Chhabra and Ms.Aishvary Vila-am, Advs. versus M/S BATA INDIA LIMITED & ORS Respondents Through Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv. with Mr. T.K. Ganju, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J. (oral) Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 10.04.2015. Vide this order the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') seeking a decree on admission had been dismissed. The petitioner is aggrieved by this finding. Record shows that the present suit is a suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits filed by the petitioner against the respondent (M/s Bata India Limited). The plaint discloses that the plaintiffs are the owners- landlords of shop bearing municipal No. 33, New Market, Tilak Nagar, New C.M.(M)No.603/2015 l'agelori2 Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). The defendant is a public limited company. Suit premises are owned by the plaintiffs. There is no dispute on this score. The fact that the defendant is an old tenant is also undisputed. Parties had an earlier litigation which was a petition seeking eviction of the tenant from the suit premises (i.e. E.P. No.336/1993). In the course of trial of that eviction petition, a settlement was arrived at between the parties and a joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC had been filed. In terms of the aforenoted compromise, it was agreed that the defendant will pay a rent of Rs. 17,000/- per month including house tax w.e.f 01.07.2001. There would be an enhancement of rent after every three years by 15%. The tenancy would be for a period of 12 years effective from 01.07.2001 with an option of further renewal of five years on such terms as were mutually acceptable to both the parties and the defendant shall convey this option one month prior to the expiry of the said terms. This is contained in para 7 of the plaint. Para 8 of the plaint discloses that period of 12 years commencing from. 01.07.2001 expired on 30.06.2013; this option given to the defendant to extend the tenancy was not exercised by him; there was nothing mutually acceptable to both parties; accordingly, the tenancy of the tenant came to an end by efflux of time on 30.06.2013; legal C.M. (M)>Jo.603/2015 notice dated 30.07.2013 had been served upon the tenant, he failed to vacate the suit property; he had also failed to enhance the rent. Suit was accordingly filed. Written statement was filed. Attention has been drawn to the corresponding paras 7 & 8; they have been highlighted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent. In these paragraphs, it is stated that the defendant had exercised his option for renewal of the lease for another period of five years which had to now commence w.e.f. 01.07.2013 and this was duly communicated to the plaintiff. It was denied that the said tenancy had expired by efflux of time. Submission being that the extended period of lease had come into operation which was the extended period of five years w.e.f. 01.07.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that there are clear and unambiguous admissions made by the defendant in his written statement. r Submission being reiterated that admittedly the parties had agreed for a lease for a period of 12 years which lease period was w.e.f. 01.07.2001; this period of 12 years had expired on 30.06.2013. The option for renewal of lease was an option but the terms were to be mutually accepted to both the parties. Submission being that besides the fact that the defendant had not exercised C.M.(M) No.603/2015 his option to renew the lease, even otherwise this lease could only be renewed on mutual terms, which not having been agreed upon, there was no renewal. The petitioners/plaintiffs are thus entitled to a decree straight away. Per contra, learned seni