SANJAY SAXENA Vs. K. SUDERSHAN REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was argued by one Mr. N.N. Anand, Advocate when the same came up for admission on 23.3.2012. After arguments, the said counsel took an adjournment to find out from the appellant whether the appellant is interested in seeking time to vacate the suit premises. Today, a new counsel appears. The new counsel for the appellant states that the appellant wants three years time to vacate the suit premises. I do not think that interest of justice requires grant of such a long period. I put it to the counsel for the appellant as to whether the appellant is interested in taking six months time to vacate the suit premises but the counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is not interested in taking six months time to vacate the suit premises. Since the appeal has already been argued on 23.3.2012, I am proceeding to pass judgment.

(2.) 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 25.2.2012 decreeing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs/landlords qua the relief of possession on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

(3.) In the city of Delhi, tenanted premises whose rent exceeds Rs. 3,500/- per month, and there is no registered lease deed for a fixed period, then such monthly tenancy can be terminated by means of serving a legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and whereafter the tenant has no legal right to stay in possession of the suit premises.