- (1.) Landlords - petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing order dated 8.8.2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gurgaon, thereby rejecting the application of the plaintiffs - landlords moved under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, seeking decree for possession on the basis of admission.
(2.) Brief facts of the present case are that petitioners - landlords are owners of residential property in question and have leased out the suit property to M/s. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. on 29.10.2002 for a period of two years commencing from 1.11.2002. Lease period was further extended for two years. However, M/s. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. vide letter dated 1.8.2006 notified the plaintiffs that lease shall stand terminated from 31.8.2006 in terms of clause 15 of the lease deed and expressed their willingness to hand over vacant possession of the property to the plaintiffs/landlords on or before 31.8.2006. Defendant No.1/respondent No.1 herein was an employee of M/s. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. and was occupying the property. He requested the plaintiffs/petitioners to grant him permission to use the property in dispute for a monthly licence fee/use and occupation charges @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. Petitioners/plaintiffs executed licence deed dated 1.9.2006 in favour of defendant No.1.
(3.) Defendant No.1 also signed the licence deed. It was stipulated in the licence deed that licence period shall be over on 31.3.2007. Thereafter, plaintiffs-petitioners served legal notice dated 2.4.2007 on the defendants to vacate the suit property as the licence had expired on 31.3.2007 by efflux of time. Again plaintiffs/petitioners vide legal notice dated 19.4.2007 called upon the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the property in dispute within 15 days from the date of said notice. Meanwhile, matrimonial dispute arose between the defendants. Plaintiffs filed suit for eviction and possession against the defendants. In the matrimonial dispute, wife - defendant No.2 approached the Magistrate concerned under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Domestic Violence Act) and ultimately that complaint went in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2007 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon. The Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 8.8.2007 (Annexure R-2/2) passed the following order: - "Considering the submissions made by both the sides and also this fact that all these aspects to be considered on merits at the time of evidence, considering prima-facie monthly income of the respondent in my considered opinion maintenance allowance awarded to the petitioner and her son is on the lower side. At least a sum of Rs. 15000/- per month should have been awarded to the petitioner/appellant and a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month should be awarded to the daughter or son of the petitioner by the learned trial Court and it is further ordered that the respondent shall pay the rent of the premises in question in which the petitioner is residing as tenant.";