SHASHI SHARMA Vs. BIMLA YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M.23266/2010 (for exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. R.S.A.No.235/2010 and C.M.23265/2010 (for stay) This second appeal has impugned the judgment dated 2.11.2010 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 1.7.2010 whereby the suit of the plaintiff seeking possession of the suit property i.e. premises/shop bearing no.2-A, Ground Floor situated Yadav Complex, Opposite Dada Dev Mandir, Main Road, Palam Vilalge, Dev Kunj, New Delhi had been decreed on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ,,the Code).

(2.) THE trial judge had held that there were clear and unambiguous admissions made by the defendant in his written statement which entitled the plaintiff to a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code. This finding was confirmed by the Appellate judge.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the relationship of landlord-tenant stands admitted between the parties. There is no dispute to this proposition. Provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act are also attracted. Legal notice dated 19.12.2006 terminating the tenancy of the defendant with effect from 6.1.2007 was received by the defendant to which a reply had also been filed. The said reply has been perused; in this reply also the only contention raised was that there was no written rent agreement entered into between the parties; the defendant had been inducted in the suit premises on the basis of an oral tenancy and the rate of rent was Rs.1500/- which was inclusive of electricity charges. There was no dispute to the legal requirements of the notice which was a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Even otherwise, the perusal of the document shows that it had fulfilled the twin requirements. The tenancy had been determined on the last day of the tenancy month giving a clear 15 day period to vacate the suit property as also by efflux of time.