LAWS(DLH)-2010-12-47

UNION OF INDIA Vs. ROSHAN LAL MAKKAR

Decided On December 02, 2010
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
ROSHAN LAL MAKKAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2010 which has endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 23.1.2010 wherein on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the suit of the plaintiff seeking possession of the suit premises bearing property no.X/978, Ground Floor, Chand Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi had been decreed in his favour.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed premises. He had vide a registered leased deed dated 08.04.2004 given the premises on rent for a period of five years to the appellant which lease had expired on 7.4.2009 by efflux of time. Legal notice dated 16.4.2008 had been issued to the defendant terminating his tenancy with effect from 8.4.2009 determining the tenancy of the appellant/defendant with the date of expiry of the lease i.e. with effect from 7.4.2009. Present suit was filed on 24.4.2009. The admitted rate of rent was Rs. 16000/-. These admissions were categorically made by the defendant in his written statement. Decree under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code had followed. The judgment of the trial judge was endorsed by the first appellate court.

(3.) On the last date, matter had been adjourned in order that the parties could amicably settle their dispute. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that after the suit had been filed, on 11.5.2010 a communication had been addressed to the plaintiff wherein the appellant had agreed to pay enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 51000-55000/- per month which was accepted by the appellant vide his communication dated 21.5.2010. Matter had thereafter been adjourned in order that the contents of this communication could fructify. However, today on the instructions from the department, learned counsel for the appellant states that the department is not willing to pay more than Rs. 38, 837/- per month plus the municipal taxes. This proposal is not acceptable to the respondent/plaintiff.