RADHIKA CHOUDHARY Vs. PAYAL VISIONS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in a suit for possession of suit property and mesne profits which had been filed by the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred to as "the plaintiff") against the appellant-defendant(hereinafter to be referred to as "the defendant"). In the impugned judgment upon admission the learned Additional District Judge by invoking the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure ("CPC" in short) came to a finding that a case of ejectment was made out against the defendant on the basis of admission of the case of the plaintiff-landlord in the written statement filed by defendant.

(2.) The material facts of the case are that the plaintiff, claiming to be the landlord/owner of the premises bearing khasra no. 857 min.(1-03) within the revenue estate of village Ghitorni( Mehrauli) (hereinafter, 'the suit property') filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The suit was initially filed in the High Court but later on it came to be transferred to District Court because of enhancement in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Courts. The case of the plaintiff-landlord in the plaint is that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit property alongwith superstructure including servant quarter and garage vide lease agreement dated 10.10.2001 at a monthly rent of Rs.50,000/- for a period of three years. The lease was for residential purposes. According to the further case of the plaintiff the defendant committed breach of some terms of the lease and therefore its tenancy was terminated before the expiration of the lease period vide notice dated 16/03/03 and since the defendant failed to deliver back the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff on the expiry of the notice period its possession w.e.f. 01/05/03 became unauthorised. The plaintiff then filed the suit for possession and mesne profits on 06/05/03.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit on various grounds set out in its written statement filed in the trial Court. It was, inter-alia, pleaded that the suit property in fact was vested in Gram Sabha and that fact had been concealed by the plaintiff and since the suit property vested in the Gram Sabha the plaintiff had no right to claim possession of the suit property from the defendant and also that the alleged notice of termination of tenancy dated 16/03/03 was not in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.