- (1.) The present is a classic case which again reaffirms the general perception of difficulties that a landlord can face in obtaining possession of a property given out on rent.
(2.) The present appeal challenges the impugned judgment dated 20th January, 2020 in RCA No. 56/2019 titled Shashi Kumar Shukla v. Abhishek Gupta by which the Appellate Court has allowed the appeal of Tenant/Respondent No.1 herein, Mr. Shashi Kumar Shukla (hereinafter "Defendant"), and has set aside the judgment and decree dated 27th August, 2019 in CS No. 232/2018 titled Abhishek Gupta v. Shashi Kumar Shukla passed by the Trial Court under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC") which partly decreed the suit qua possession of the suit premises in favour of the Landlord/Appellant herein, Mr. Abhishek Gupta (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), and directed the Defendant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. This Court, vide order dated 5th June, 2020, had framed the substantial questions of law that arise in this case. The relevant extract from the said order is set out hereunder: "6. The Court has perused the rent agreement dated 6 th September, 2017 and the plea of the Respondent, Mr. Shashi Shukla in the written statement. Mr. Shashi Shukla himself is an advocate and he admits that he is in possession of the third floor of the property. He submits that currently no one resides in the property. His plea is that he has signed the rent agreement with the Petitioner but the same is a loan agreement. He also claims that he is paying rent to one Mr. Sunil Kumar under an agreement of 2018. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, there is a clear question of law that arises in respect of whether trial can be directed in matters of this nature where Order XII Rule 6 CPC has been invoked and whether the Respondent can be allowed to renege from the rent agreement which he has signed and argue that the same is a loan agreement. Permitting such arguments to be raised would be contrary to Section 92 of the Evidence Act. When an agreement is in writing, any oral interpretation of the same contrary to what is written is clearly not permissible. Moreover, in suits for possession of this nature, once it is admitted that the Respondent has taken the premises on rent and has in fact paid rent, on the basis of a specious plea that the rent agreement is a loan transaction, if trial of the suit is directed, it would lead to unnecessary protraction of the adjudication. Prima facie, this Court is convinced that such a plea ought not to be permitted. 8. Accordingly, issue notice to the Respondent. Mr. Shashi Shukla accepts notice. He submits that he is returning to Delhi next month. Accordingly, list this matter for hearing on 27th July, 2020. In the meantime, the Respondent shall continue to pay Rs. 9,000/- per month to the Appellant w.e.f. 1 stJune, 2020, subject to further orders of this Court. The Respondent shall also not part with, alienate or create any third-party interest in the third floor of the property."
(3.) Two rent agreements were executed between the Plaintiff and Defendant, dated 6th November, 2014 and 6th September, 2017 in respect of the property/flat, consisting of two bedrooms, one bathroom/toilet, one store, drawing/dining room, and a kitchen on the roof of the second floor i.e. the third floor of property bearing No. RZ-1/2, South Extension, Part-III, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter "suit premises"). In view of the irregular and erratic payment of rent by the Defendant, the Plaintiff terminated the tenancy vide Legal Notice dated 9th January, 2018. The said Legal Notice was sent by speed post and was replied to, by the Defendant 's lawyer, vide Reply dated 29 th January, 2018. As averred by the Plaintiff, in the said Reply, the Defendant had sent an envelope containing two blank papers to the Plaintiff, and the same was received by the Plaintiff on 30th January 2018. On 31st January, 2018, the Plaintiff replied to the said blank envelope through his counsel and called upon the Defendant to instead send a Reply to the Legal Notice dated 9th January 2018. Vide purported Reply dated 28th January 2018, the Defendant took the stand that he was not a tenant with the Plaintiff in respect of the suit premises and that he had only taken a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- at 4% interest per month from the Plaintiff. However, as the Plaintiff did not have a money lending license at the time, the Defendant was allegedly forced to enter into a rent agreement, as proof for the said loan agreement. As per the Plaintiff, the said Reply was filed only along with the Written Statements before the Trial Court, and was never received by the Plaintiff, contemporaneously.;