BASHIR AHMAD SHAH HAMI Vs. SUNITA ARORA

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 and decree of the Trial Court dated 19.10.2011 decreeing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs/landlords for possession and mesne profits. At the outset itself, I may note that the appellants/defendants were proceeded ex parte repeatedly before the Trial Court, and which ex parte proceedings were set aside, subject to payment of costs, however, no costs were paid and ex parte proceedings thereafter continued. Not only that, the malafides of the appellants/defendants/tenants are apparent on the face because even at the stage of final arguments once again an application was filed seeking the relief for filing of the written statement, which of course was rightly dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the appellants/defendants were inducted as tenants in the entire lower ground floor of the property bearing no. 146, Kailash Hills, New Delhi under a registered lease deed dated 20.6.2008 (Ex.PW2/1). The lease was for a period of 11 months at a rent of Rs.17,000/- per month. The premises were let out for residential purposes.

(3.) THE appellants/defendants were served but since remained absent, therefore, they were proceeded ex parte on 3.12.2010. The ex parte order was set aside by giving a last opportunity to file the written statement by an order dated 25.3.2011 subject to payment of costs, however, the directions were not complied with and the costs were not deposited. Of course, the appellants/defendants cross-examined the witnesses of the respondents/plaintiffs. To further delay the proceedings one application at the stage of final arguments was moved to file the written statement, and which was dismissed by the Trial Court.