Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the trial court’s order refusing to reject a suit for possession, arrears of rent, and mesne profits. The Court held that there was no bar under law against pleading an oral tenancy and emphasized that the claim based on oral tenancy must proceed to trial. It concluded that:
“Creation of oral tenancy is not barred by any law.”
Further, the Court clarified that:
“There is nothing reflected here which may indicate, even remotely, that the suit is barred by any provision of law.”
Accordingly, the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was dismissed, and the pending application was also disposed of.
Facts
- A civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff seeking recovery of possession, arrears of rent, and mesne profits.
- The property in question was located in Mohan Park, Model Town, Delhi, and was originally let out to one Ms. Nidhi Goswami via a registered lease deed.
- After the lease period ended, the tenancy allegedly converted into a month-to-month tenancy.
- The defendant (now deceased), mother of the original tenant, was alleged to have been orally inducted as a tenant on 01.02.2007 at a monthly rent of ₹10,000 excluding electricity and water charges.
- The plaintiff claimed termination of the oral tenancy and sought possession and dues.
- After the defendant’s death, her legal representatives were substituted, but they did not file a formal written statement, only an ad-hoc one disputing both the ownership and tenancy.
Issues
- Whether the suit based on an alleged oral tenancy is barred by law and deserves to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action.
- Whether the documents relied upon by the plaintiff, including an unregistered lease deed, can support a claim for possession.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner contended that the impugned trial court order dismissing her application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was perverse and not in accordance with law.
- It was argued that the suit was liable to be rejected as it did not disclose any valid cause of action.
- The petitioner asserted that the oral tenancy pleaded by the plaintiff was legally untenable and thus the suit was barred by law.
- It was further argued that the plaintiff had no registered document to establish ownership or tenancy and hence had no locus to seek recovery.
- The petitioner alleged that the deceased defendant had been cheated and that there was no such tenancy in the first place.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The plaintiff relied upon the original lease deed with Ms. Nidhi Goswami to demonstrate the history of tenancy.
- It was contended that after the original tenancy lapsed, a fresh oral tenancy was created with the deceased defendant.
- The plaintiff’s case was solely premised on oral tenancy, and he claimed entitlement to possession and dues based on its termination.
- It was clarified that ownership per se was not asserted on the basis of title documents, but only on the existence and breach of oral tenancy.
Analysis of the Law
- The High Court emphasized that Order VII Rule 11 CPC deals with rejection of a plaint only if it does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by law.
- It noted that: “Creation of oral tenancy is not barred by any law.”
- The Court recognized that while the burden of proving an oral tenancy is high, it still constitutes a legally permissible plea.
- The question of ownership and title was held to be irrelevant at the preliminary stage since the relief was based solely on landlord-tenant relationship.
Precedent Analysis
No specific precedents were cited by the Court in this decision. However, the reasoning follows established legal principles that suits cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 merely on the basis of disputed facts, and the question of proof must be left to trial.
Court’s Reasoning
- The Court found that the plaintiff had pleaded sufficient material facts to establish a cause of action.
- It noted that the issue of whether an oral tenancy in fact existed was a matter to be proved during trial.
- The Court rejected the argument that absence of a registered lease deed or title documents automatically disentitled the plaintiff from seeking recovery.
- It emphasized that the relief sought was not dependent on ownership but on tenancy, and such plea could not be rejected at the threshold.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that there was no legal bar to pursuing a suit based on oral tenancy and that the application under Order VII Rule 11 was rightly rejected by the trial court. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was dismissed accordingly.
Implications
- This decision clarifies that even oral tenancies, if properly pleaded, are maintainable in law and not barred per se.
- The ruling reaffirms the principle that disputes involving tenancy or possession should be decided after full trial rather than being rejected at the threshold.
- The Court’s approach ensures that technical objections do not preclude a party from presenting its case, especially where the dispute revolves around factual issues requiring evidence.