Supreme Court reinstates Trial Court decision in tenancy dispute, grants possession and damages.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and reinstated the Trial Court's decision in a tenancy dispute. The appellant was granted a decree for possession of the entire tenanted premises, rejecting the respondent's argument against splitting the tenancy. The appellant was also entitled to claim damages for the respondent's use and occupation of the property. The termination of the tenancy was deemed valid with a two-month notice as per the lease agreement. The suit was found maintainable, and the Delhi Rent Control Act was held inapplicable. The appellant's appeal was allowed, granting possession with conditions and no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to a decree for possession.
2. Entitlement to claim damages/mesne profits for use and occupation.
3. Validity of the termination of tenancy.
4. Maintainability of the suit.
5. Proper valuation for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction.
6. Applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
7. Nature of the premises (whether let out for manufacturing purposes).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to a Decree for Possession:
The appellant sought a decree for possession by ejectment of the respondent from a portion of property No. B-59/1, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the tenancy had been validly terminated and the appellant was entitled to claim possession. However, the High Court reversed this finding, holding that the appellant had let out the entire premises, including unauthorized portions, and thus could not split the tenancy by seeking possession of only part of the premises. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court, reinstating the Trial Court's decision that the suit was for the entire tenanted premises as described in the lease documents, and thus no splitting of tenancy occurred.

2. Entitlement to Claim Damages/Mesne Profits:
The appellant also sought mesne profits/damages from the respondent for use and occupation of the suit property. The Trial Court held that the appellant was entitled to claim these damages as the respondent failed to vacate the premises after termination of the tenancy. The High Court did not contest this finding, and it was confirmed.

3. Validity of the Termination of Tenancy:
The respondent contested the validity of the notice terminating the tenancy, arguing that it was for manufacturing purposes and required six months' notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Trial Court held that the tenancy was validly terminated with a two-month notice as per the lease agreement. The Supreme Court agreed with the Trial Court, stating that the lease was for a period of less than one year and could be terminated by giving two months' notice, as per the contract between the parties.

4. Maintainability of the Suit:
The respondent argued that the suit was not maintainable in its present form. The Trial Court found the suit maintainable, and this finding was not contested by the High Court.

5. Proper Valuation for Court Fee and Jurisdiction:
The respondent did not press this issue, and the Trial Court decided it in favor of the appellant. This finding was also not contested by the High Court.

6. Applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act:
The Trial Court held that the Delhi Rent Control Act was not applicable as the rent was more than Rs. 3,500 per month. This finding was confirmed by the High Court and was not contested.

7. Nature of the Premises (Manufacturing Purposes):
The High Court held that the premises were let out for manufacturing purposes, requiring six months' notice for termination. However, the Supreme Court found that the lease was for a period of less than one year and could be terminated with a two-month notice as per the lease agreement.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The appellant's suit for possession was decreed, and the appellant was entitled to take possession of the demised premises. The respondent's dispossession was stayed until 31.5.2005, provided they filed an undertaking to vacate and hand over possession by that date, along with paying any arrears of rent and future rent. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

---