SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA Vs. SANTOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the respondents does not oppose the allowing of these applications. Hence, the delay for filing the application for re-admission of the appeal is condoned and appeal is restored to its original number.

(2.) The challenge by means of the first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 6.5.2000 whereby the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs for possession and recovery of rent was decreed.

(3.) The facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs let out to the appellant/defendant the property No. 135A measuring 450 sq. yds. in village Dasgaraha, New Delhi. The lease is said to be pursuant to a document exhibited as Ex.P12 before the trial Court. There is also a simultaneous receipt which has been exhibited as Ex.P13. The document Ex.P12 is not a lease deed in the sense of the term of the document, but, it is only a record of a transaction which is signed by the respondents alone. As per this document, the tenancy commenced from 17.10.1983 and was for five years. This tenancy came to an end therefore on 17.10.1988. On account of the appellant having failed to vacate the suit premises, legal notices dated 10.3.1988, 14.7.1988, 1.10.1988 and 30.11.1988 were served on the appellant asking for payment of rent and terminating the tenancy. On failure of the appellant in paying the rent, the subject suit for possession and recovery of rent was filed.