PREM KUMAR SHARMA Vs. NARESH KUMAR SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition seeks assailing of order dated 14.09.2012 of ADJ-1, North whereby an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, filed by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit CS 98/2009, was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits and mandatory injunction against the respondents. The case was set up on the averments that the suit property was let out by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 and who in turn had sub let the same to respondent No. 2, without the consent of the petitioner. The application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC was filed by the petitioner alleging that he is entitled to a decree of possession. It was submitted that the respondent No. 1 had not denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. It was further submitted that notice of termination of tenancy was repeatedly served upon both the respondents. The suit and the application were contested by the respondents before the ADJ. The learned ADJ observed that perusal of the written statement of respondent No. 1 shows that he has specifically denied to be tenant in the suit premises or his having sub let the same to respondent No. 2. According to the respondent No. 1 there never existed relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioner and he is not in possession of the suit premises and thus, the suit was not maintainable against him. The plea of respondent No. 2 was that the suit property was let out to him by the petitioner. He had also disputed the service as well as the validity of the alleged notice dated 12th August 2009. Considering the plea of the parties, the learned ADJ observed, and rightly so, that it could not be said that there existed any unequivocal and unambiguous admissions on the part of the respondents, which would entitle the petitioner to a decree of possession under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. He also observed that in view of the dispute having been raised by the respondent No. 2 regarding the service and validity of the termination of tenancy, this also required to be proved by way of evidence by the petitioner.

(3.) IN the case Delhi Jal Board Vs. Surendra P. Malik 2003 111 AD Delhi 419, the Division Bench of this Court, dealing with the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC held thus: