ABHISHEK GUPTA Vs. SHASHI KUMAR SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present is a classic case which again reaffirms the general perception of difficulties that a landlord can face in obtaining possession of a property given out on rent.

(2.) The present appeal challenges the impugned judgment dated 20th January, 2020 in RCA No. 56/2019 titled Shashi Kumar Shukla v. Abhishek Gupta by which the Appellate Court has allowed the appeal of Tenant/Respondent No.1 herein, Mr. Shashi Kumar Shukla (hereinafter "Defendant"), and has set aside the judgment and decree dated 27th August, 2019 in CS No. 232/2018 titled Abhishek Gupta v. Shashi Kumar Shukla passed by the Trial Court under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC") which partly decreed the suit qua possession of the suit premises in favour of the Landlord/Appellant herein, Mr. Abhishek Gupta (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), and directed the Defendant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. This Court, vide order dated 5th June, 2020, had framed the substantial questions of law that arise in this case. The relevant extract from the said order is set out hereunder:

(3.) Two rent agreements were executed between the Plaintiff and Defendant, dated 6th November, 2014 and 6th September, 2017 in respect of the property/flat, consisting of two bedrooms, one bathroom/toilet, one store, drawing/dining room, and a kitchen on the roof of the second floor i.e. the third floor of property bearing No. RZ-1/2, South Extension, Part-III, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter "suit premises"). In view of the irregular and erratic payment of rent by the Defendant, the Plaintiff terminated the tenancy vide Legal Notice dated 9th January, 2018. The said Legal Notice was sent by speed post and was replied to, by the Defendant 's lawyer, vide Reply dated 29 th January, 2018. As averred by the Plaintiff, in the said Reply, the Defendant had sent an envelope containing two blank papers to the Plaintiff, and the same was received by the Plaintiff on 30th January 2018. On 31st January, 2018, the Plaintiff replied to the said blank envelope through his counsel and called upon the Defendant to instead send a Reply to the Legal Notice dated 9th January 2018. Vide purported Reply dated 28th January 2018, the Defendant took the stand that he was not a tenant with the Plaintiff in respect of the suit premises and that he had only taken a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- at 4% interest per month from the Plaintiff. However, as the Plaintiff did not have a money lending license at the time, the Defendant was allegedly forced to enter into a rent agreement, as proof for the said loan agreement. As per the Plaintiff, the said Reply was filed only along with the Written Statements before the Trial Court, and was never received by the Plaintiff, contemporaneously.