TRILOK ANAND Vs. ROOP KISHORE TULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 16.07.2012 of Learned Additional District Judge (Central) whereby he allowed the application Under Order 15 -A CPC of the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant for possession and recovery of rent amount of Rs.1,15,000/ - in the court of ADJ. The said suit was based on the premise that the respondent/plaintiff had purchased the suit premises from its owner Bihari Lal vide registered sale deed dated 28.07,2011. The petitioner/defendant was already tenant in the suit premises under Bihari Lal vide registered lease deed dated 5.9.2003 and subsequent lease deed dated 1.10.2005. After the expiry of the lease period, he continued to occupy the suit premises at the monthly rent of Rs.20,000/ - and same was the position when the respondent/plaintiff purchased the suit premises from Bihari Lal. The respondent/plaintiff had issued him a notice on 8.8.2011 informing him about having purchased the suit premises and requesting him to pay the rent to him. The petitioner/defendant having failed, the plaintiff issued notice dated 22.11.2011 terminating the tenancy and calling upon him to vacate the premises and pay the damages. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order 15 -A CPC, which was treated by the trial judge as under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC and was disposed of vide the impugned order. The petitioner was directed to pay the user charges @ Rs.20,000/ - per month from 1.8.2011 till date within four weeks from the date of the order and also the future charges at the same rate till further orders. This order is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) THE main ground of challenge that has been set up by the petitioner, who was the defendant in the suit, is that Bihari Lal had agreed to sell the suit premises to him for Rs.72 lakhs and he had paid Rs.10 lakhs to him as part payment of the consideration on 20.05.2011. His case was that after 20.05.2011 he was in occupation of the suit premises in his independent rights not as a tenant.