Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 665 (DEL)

NB SINGH (HUF) v. PERFEXA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD

2009-05-29

REKHA SHARMA

body2009
REKHA SHARMA, J. These are two applications, one filed by the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) for a decree of possession on the basis of alleged admissions made by the defendant in the written statement, and the other by thedefendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit property is an agricultural land and that acivil suit in respect of such property is barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The facts relevant for the disposal of the two applications are as under:- The plaintiff is theowner of land measuring 3.1 acres at No.1, Kapashera Estate, New Delhi (Farm House) with constructions thereon,consisting of a dwelling unit on the ground and first floor, a swimming pool and other amenities, such as, lawns, servant quarters, flower andvegetable plantation etc. The aforementioned farm-house was leased out by the plaintiff to the defendant-company for the residence of itsManaging Director for a period of two years at a monthly rental ofRs.1,60,000/- (excluding electricity and water charges) vide Lease Agreement dated September 10, 2004. The lease was terminated by the plaintiff by means of a legal notice dated September 25, 2006 and interms of the said notice, the tenancy of the defendant expired on October 31, 2006. Despite service of notice of termination, the defendant failed tohandover the vacant possession of the suit property and that led to the plaintiff filing the present suit praying for a decree of possession of thesuit property and for a decree for a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- being thearrears of rent for the months of September and October, 2006 @Rs.1,60,000/- per month along with pendentelite and future interest @24% per annum. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of futuremesne profits from November 01, 2006 till handing over peaceful vacant possession of the suit property @ Rs.3,20,000/- per month or at any other higher market rate of similar premises situated in the locality. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of futuremesne profits from November 01, 2006 till handing over peaceful vacant possession of the suit property @ Rs.3,20,000/- per month or at any other higher market rate of similar premises situated in the locality. The defendant in its written statement filed in response to the plaint, amongst others, has taken a preliminary objection to the verymaintainability of the suit on the ground that the suit property is an agricultural land and Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954prohibits a Civil Court to take cognizance of any suit, application orproceedings in respect of a matter pertaining to agricultural land. The defendant has also taken an alternative plea that the suit property beingagricultural land, the law requires termination of lease of such land bygiving six months’ notice expiring with the end of the year of tenancy andthat the plaintiff having not given any such notice, the suit is liable to bedismissed on this ground if not on any other ground. The defendant has also set-up a case that the lease between the parties was extended for a further period of 24months commencing from September 15, 2006 uptoSeptember 14, 2008 at an enhanced rate of Rs.1,75,000/- per month and hence, the termination of lease prior thereto was inconsequential. Having regard to the pleadings of the parties, the question that arises for consideration is whether the provisions of theDelhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 are applicable to the suit property and if not, whetherthe pleadings as contained in the written statement constituteadmissions on the part of the defendant so as to entitle the plaintiff for a decree of possession? What is an agricultural land in terms of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 is defined in Section 3(13) of the said Act. The relevant extract of the same runs as under:- “3Definitions-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires 1. …………………………… 2. …………………………… 3. …………………………… ……………………………. 13- “land” except in sections 23 and 24, means landheld or occupied for purpose connected withagriculture, horticulture or animal husbandryincluding pisciculture and poultry farming andincludes – (a). Buildings appurtenant thereto, (b). village abadis, (c). grovelands, (d). The relevant extract of the same runs as under:- “3Definitions-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires 1. …………………………… 2. …………………………… 3. …………………………… ……………………………. 13- “land” except in sections 23 and 24, means landheld or occupied for purpose connected withagriculture, horticulture or animal husbandryincluding pisciculture and poultry farming andincludes – (a). Buildings appurtenant thereto, (b). village abadis, (c). grovelands, (d). lands for village pasture or land coveredby water andused for growing singharas and other produce or land in the bed of a river and used for casual or occasional cultivation, but does not include – Land occupied by building in belts orareas adjacentto Delhi town, which the Chief Commissioner may bya notification in the Official Gazettedeclare as anacquisition thereto; 14……………………………………………” The defendant in itswritten statement has not denied that the suitproperty was leased out to it vide leaseagreement dated September 10,2004. Rather it is the stand of thedefendant that after it receivedcommunication purporting to terminate the lease deed dated September 10, 2004, it approached the plaintiff to implement the extension clausein the lease deed and that consequent thereto, the lease was extended fora further period of 24 months from September 15, 2006 till September 14, 2008 on the mutually agreed terms by the parties. In other words, the defendant admits execution of the lease deed between the parties andinsofar as the contents of the lease deed are concerned, though itdescribes the suit property as a farm-house, but it is clearly mentioned therein that there are constructions raised on it with all amenities, lawns, swimming pool and servant quarters etc. It is also mentioned therein that it hasbeen leased out tothe defendant-company for theresidence of its Managing Director Shri T.S.Sandhu for a period of twoyears commencing from September 10, 2004 which could be renewed on mutually agreed terms. In view of the nature of construction raised on the suit property consisting of a dwelling unit on the ground floor and first floor, aswimming pool and other amenities, such as, lawns, servant quarters etc. and there being no denial of the same from the side of the defendant, it was contended by learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff that the suitproperty no longer retained the character of an agricultural land. and there being no denial of the same from the side of the defendant, it was contended by learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff that the suitproperty no longer retained the character of an agricultural land. It was further contended that in view of the fact that the suit property was being used by the Managing Director of the defendant-company for hisresidence on as high a rent as Rs.1,60,000/- per month, it would be atotal misnomer and a travesty of justice to call the suit property as agricultural land in terms of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Learnedcounsel for the plaintiff also placed reliance upon photocopy of thesanctioned site plan of the suit property, photocopy of the completion certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to the plaintiff dated May 04, 1990, photocopy of the electricity bills issued by BSESRajdhani Power Limited in the name of the plaintiff and also thephotocopy of house-tax calculations whereby the suit property was assessed to house-tax by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. On the basis of these documents, it was argued that if the suit property was anagricultural land, there was no need to get the plan sanctioned for the construction raised thereon or for obtaining completion certificate fromthe Municipal Corporation of Delhi and there was also no reason to get the property assessed to house-tax. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel appearing for the defendant in support of its case that the suit property isagricultural land, placed on record Khasra Girdawari of the suit property for the year2006-2007 and Khatauni of the year 2002-2003 wherein the plaintiff has been described as a Bhumidhar. Before I proceed further, it needs to be noticed that this Court inthe case of Ram Lubbaya Kapoor Versus J R Chawla and Others, 1986RLR 432 has held that any land before it can be termed as “land” for thepurpose of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 must be held or occupied forpurposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry etc. and if the land is not used for said purposes, it ceases to be land for the purpose of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. It has been further held that a Bhumidhar is bound not only to retain possession of his land butalso use it for specified purposes at all material times if he is to continueto be a Bhumidhar. and if the land is not used for said purposes, it ceases to be land for the purpose of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. It has been further held that a Bhumidhar is bound not only to retain possession of his land butalso use it for specified purposes at all material times if he is to continueto be a Bhumidhar. A similar view was taken by this Court in NarainSingh and Another Versus Financial Commissioner in WP(C) No.670 of 1995 decided on July 14, 2008. It is manifest from the above judgments of this Court that a property ceases to be an agricultural property if it is not used foragricultural purposes. In the present case, as noticed above, defendant in its written statement has admitted that the suit property is a farmhouse which consists of a dwelling unit on its ground floor and first floor,a swimming pool and servant quarter etc. The defendant has furtheradmitted that the suit property was leased out to it for the residence ofits Managing Director Shri T.S.Sandhu. It is also admitted that therental of the suit property at the time it was leased out to defendant wasRs.1,60,000/- per month and it is being continuously used by itsManaging Director Shri T.S.Sandhu for his residence. The aforesaid facts coupled with the fact that the plaintiff got the plan sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for raisingconstruction on the so-called agricultural land, obtained completion certificate from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and is paying house-tax as assessed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi lead me to noother conclusion except to the conclusion that the suit property, by nostretch of imagination, can be called an agricultural land. Thedefendant-company who had taken premises on lease for the residence ofits Managing Director on a hefty rent of Rs.1,60,000/- per month isestopped from contending that the suitproperty is an agricultural land covered by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Of-course, learnedcounsel for the defendant sought to place reliance on the revenue recordsto make good the submission that the plaintiff continues to be a Bhumidhar in such records but in the facts and circumstances, as noticed above, the description of the plaintiff as a Bhumidhar is of noconsequence. Of-course, learnedcounsel for the defendant sought to place reliance on the revenue recordsto make good the submission that the plaintiff continues to be a Bhumidhar in such records but in the facts and circumstances, as noticed above, the description of the plaintiff as a Bhumidhar is of noconsequence. Having regard to what has been noticed above, I hold, that thedefendant has no right to continue in the suit property after the termination of its tenancy on October 31, 2006 and in any case not afterSeptember 14, 2008 on which date, as per the defendant’s own case, therenewed period of lease had also expired. For the foregoing reasons, the application of the plaintiff underOrder 12 Rule 6 of the Code being I.A. No.13634 of 2007 is accepted and consequently, a decree of possession in respect of the suit property, i.e. Farm House No.1, Village Kapashera, Delhi (as shown in site planannexed with the plaint) is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff. The application of the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code being I.A.No.3114 of 2009 is dismissed as devoid of any merit. The suit is keptpending for determining the question of mesne profit payable by thedefendant. List the suit for directions on July 10, 2009. The applications stand disposed of.