M.P. DANG Vs. REKHA THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Regular Second Appeal filed under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 1.10.11 passed by the First Appellate Court in RCA No. 59/11 and judgment and decree dated 25.4.11 passed by the CCJ in Suit No. 434/07.

(2.) Arguing for the appellant Mr. Virendra Singh, counsel submits that both the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are perverse and illegal and contrary to the facts and the legal issues involved. Counsel further submits that both the Courts below committed material irregularity in ignoring the fact that notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was sent by the respondent on a wrong address i.e. shop No. 3, Rajpur Market Mahalaxmi Enclave, near Shiv Vihar, Pulliya, Karawal Nagar, Shahdara Delhi while as per own stand of the respondent in the legal notice and the documents placed on record shop let out in favour of the appellant was shop No. 10 and not shop No. 3. Counsel further submits that even the money orders sent by the appellant wherein clearly the address of the suit premises was mentioned as shop No. 10 and not shop No. 3 and, therefore, also the respondent could not have sent the legal notice terminating the tenancy of the appellant at shop No. 3. Counsel also submits that even the rent receipts issued by the respondent also bears same shop No. 10 and, therefore, there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent to have sent the notice at the wrong address. Counsel thus submits that once the appellant had not received the notice and the termination notice did not relate to the tenanted premises in question, therefore, without terminating the tenancy of the appellant, the respondent could not have filed a suit for possession against the appellant.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at considerable length and given my thoughtful consideration to the pleas raised.