MUKESH CHANDER KUMAR Vs. SUMAN BENIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff Suman Beniwal had filed a suit for possession of shop No. 4 in property Khasra No. 460/1, situated by the side of State Bank of Patiala, Rama Market, Pitam Pura, Delhi. This property had been leased out to the defendant Mukesh Chander at a monthly rental of Rs. 3,777/-. Since 15th August, 2008, the defendant had not paid rent to the plaintiffs. Legal Notice dated 12.2.2009 had been sent to the defendant, pursuant to which he had remitted a sum of Rs. 22,662/- to the plaintiffs, but not the entire arrears. Thereafter, another legal notice dated 21.2.2009 had been sent to the defendant terminating his tenancy with the expiry of the midnight of 31st March, 2009.

(2.) Written statement had been filed.

(3.) Counsel for the plaintiff had, thereafter, moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking a decree in view of the admissions made by the defendant in his written statement. The Trial Judge vide judgment dated 25.2.2010 decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession. It was held that there were clear and unequivocal admissions made by the defendant in his written statement entitling the plaintiffs to a decree of possession. The relevant extract of the said finding, inter alia, reads as follows: