AAKRITI CARPET Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial court dated 2.4.2009, by which judgment the trial court decreed the suit filed by the respondent / plaintiff / landlord against the appellant / defendant under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for possession.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent / plaintiff inducted the appellant / defendant as a tenant in the suit property bearing No.447 (Old No.123), B-259, Gali Mandir Wali, Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- exclusive of other charges. THE tenancy was terminated by a legal notice dated 8.8.2006, and since the appellant / defendant failed to vacate the subject property, a suit for possession was filed. It may be noted that prior to filing of the subject suit, the appellant / defendant had filed proceedings under Section 44 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 seeking that the respondent / plaintiff be directed to maintain the tenanted property and had claimed deduction for expenses made for repairs to the tenanted property. This petition under Section 44 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, filed by the appellant / defendant was dismissed on the statement of the appellant / defendant that the subject premises did not fall within the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as the Delhi Rent Control Act had not been extended by any notification to the subject area where the suit premises are situated.

(3.) IN view of the above said fact that the premises are outside the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The appellant / defendant himself in the earlier proceedings under Section 44 of the Delhi Rent Control Act admitted that the proceedings could not be filed under the Delhi Rent Control Act as the premises were not situated within the area of operation of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the fact that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties which was terminated by a legal notice, shows that the trial Court rightly decreed the suit under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC for possession. I may finally note that this Court vide order dated 8.9.2009 directed the appellant to pay the rent of Rs.2,000/- per month as per the agreement, however, the counsel for the respondent says that the appellant has not paid the rent since 1.4.2011, though the same is disputed by the counsel for the appellant.