IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

I.A. Nos.13634/2007 & 3114/2009

in CS(OS) 2311/2006

Date of Decision: May 29, 2009

NB SINGH (HUF) ..... Plaintiff

Through Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Advocate
with Mr. P.C.Sen & Mr. Rohit, Advocates

versus

M/S PERFEXA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD ..... Defendant

Through Mr. Keshav Dayal, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

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 the

defendant 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 a

civil 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:-

I.A.Nos.13634/2007 & 3114/2009 in CS(OS) No.2311/2006 Page 1 of 8

 The plaintiff is the owner 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 and

vegetable plantation etc. The aforementioned farm-house was leased out

by the plaintiff to the defendant-company for the residence of its

Managing Director for a period of two years at a monthly rental of

Rs.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 in

terms of the said notice, the tenancy of the defendant expired on October

31, 2006. Despite service of notice of termination, the defendant failed to

handover the vacant possession of the suit property and that led to the

plaintiff filing the present suit praying for a decree of possession of the

suit property and for a decree for a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- being the

arrears 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 future

mesne 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 very

maintainability of the suit on the ground that the suit property is an

agricultural land and Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954

prohibits a Civil Court to take cognizance of any suit, application or

proceedings in respect of a matter pertaining to agricultural land. The

I.A.Nos.13634/2007 & 3114/2009 in CS(OS) No.2311/2006 Page 2 of 8

defendant has also taken an alternative plea that the suit property being

agricultural land, the law requires termination of lease of such land by

giving six months’ notice expiring with the end of the year of tenancy and

that the plaintiff having not given any such notice, the suit is liable to be

dismissed 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 24 months commencing from September 15, 2006 upto

September 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 the Delhi Land

Reforms Act, 1954 are applicable to the suit property and if not, whether

the pleadings as contained in the written statement constitute

admissions 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:-

“3 Definitions- In this Act, unless the context otherwise

requires-

1. ……………………………
2. ……………………………
3. ……………………………

…………………………….

13- “land” except in sections 23 and 24, means land

held or occupied for purpose connected with
agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry
including pisciculture and poultry farming and
includes –

(a). Buildings appurtenant thereto,

(b). village abadis,
(c). grovelands,
(d). lands for village pasture or land covered by water
and used for growing singharas and other produce or

I.A.Nos.13634/2007 & 3114/2009 in CS(OS) No.2311/2006 Page 3 of 8

 land in the bed of a river and used for casual or
occasional cultivation,

but does not include –

Land occupied by building in belts or areas adjacent

to Delhi town, which the Chief Commissioner may by
a notification in the Official Gazette declare as an
acquisition thereto;

14……………………………………………”

The defendant in its written statement has not denied that the suit

property was leased out to it vide lease agreement dated September 10,

2004. Rather it is the stand of the defendant that after it received

communication purporting to terminate the lease deed dated September

10, 2004, it approached the plaintiff to implement the extension clause

in the lease deed and that consequent thereto, the lease was extended for

a 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 and

insofar as the contents of the lease deed are concerned, though it

describes 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 has been leased out to the defendant-company for the

residence of its Managing Director Shri T.S.Sandhu for a period of two

years 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, a

swimming pool and other amenities, such as, lawns, servant quarters

etc. and there being no denial of the same from the side of the defendant,

I.A.Nos.13634/2007 & 3114/2009 in CS(OS) No.2311/2006 Page 4 of 8

it was contended by learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff that the suit

property 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 his

residence on as high a rent as Rs.1,60,000/- per month, it would be a

total misnomer and a travesty of justice to call the suit property as

agricultural land in terms of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Learned

counsel for the plaintiff also placed reliance upon photocopy of the

sanctioned 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 BSES

Rajdhani Power Limited in the name of the plaintiff and also the

photocopy 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 an

agricultural land, there was no need to get the plan sanctioned for the

construction raised thereon or for obtaining completion certificate from

the 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 is agricultural

land, placed on record Khasra Girdawari of the suit property for the year

2006-2007 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 in

the case of Ram Lubbaya Kapoor Versus J R Chawla and Others, 1986

RLR 432 has held that any land before it can be termed as “land” for the

I.A.Nos.13634/2007 & 3114/2009 in CS(OS) No.2311/2006 Page 5 of 8

purpose of Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 must be held or occupied for

purposes 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 but

also use it for specified purposes at all material times if he is to continue

to be a Bhumidhar. A similar view was taken by this Court in Narain

Singh 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 for

agricultural purposes. In the present case, as noticed above, defendant

in its written statement has admitted that the suit property is a farm-

house which consists of a dwelling unit on its ground floor and first floor,

a swimming pool and servant quarter etc. The defendant has further

admitted that the suit property was leased out to it for the residence of

its Managing Director Shri T.S.Sandhu. It is also admitted that the

rental of the suit property at the time it was leased out to defendant was

Rs.1,60,000/- per month and it is being continuously used by its

Managing 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 raising

construction 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 no

other conclusion except to the conclusion that the suit property, by no

stretch of imagination, can be called an agricultural land. The

I.A.Nos.13634/2007 & 3114/2009 in CS(OS) No.2311/2006 Page 6 of 8

defendant-company who had taken premises on lease for the residence of

its Managing Director on a hefty rent of Rs.1,60,000/- per month is

estopped from contending that the suit property is an agricultural land

covered by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Of-course, learned

counsel for the defendant sought to place reliance on the revenue records

to 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 no

consequence.

Having regard to what has been noticed above, I hold, that the

defendant has no right to continue in the suit property after the

termination of its tenancy on October 31, 2006 and in any case not after

September 14, 2008 on which date, as per the defendant’s own case, the

renewed period of lease had also expired.

For the foregoing reasons, the application of the plaintiff under

Order 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 plan

annexed 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 kept

pending for determining the question of mesne profit payable by the

defendant.

List the suit for directions on July 10, 2009.

The applications stand disposed of.

I.A.Nos.13634/2007 & 3114/2009 in CS(OS) No.2311/2006 Page 7 of 8

 Sd./-

REKHA SHARMA, J.

May 29, 2009

I.A.Nos.13634/2007 & 3114/2009 in CS(OS) No.2311/2006 Page 8 of 8