ANOOP MAHESHWARI Vs. DEEPALI CHANDHOKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed against the judgment dated 9.8.2012 passed by the learned ADJ as well as the against the order dated 18.2.13 passed by the learned ADJ reviewing the application of the appellant by virtue of which the first appellate Court had upheld the judgment and decree dated 2.2.12 passed by the learned Civil Judge in Suit No. 308/G3/10 decreeing the suit for possession. It may be pertinent here to mention that the respondent who happens to be a practising Advocate had filed a suit for possession in respect of a Flat No. 20B, OCS Apartment, Mayur Vihar, Phase -I, Delhi alleging that respondent No. 1 had entered into a lease deed dated 1.4.2005 with the appellant for three years on a monthly rent of Rs. 8000/ - per month apart from electricity and water charges. It was also alleged that the rent was to be increased annually @ 500/ - and the appellant had issued 36 post -dated cheques to the respondents towards the payment of monthly rent for the entire duration of the lease. It had been alleged that the cheques when presented on the dates, (when they were due for encashment), were dishonoured on account of insufficient funds and, accordingly, the respondent was constrained to lodge complaints under Section 138, NI Act on account of dishonour of cheques apart from initiating action for retrieving the possession.

(2.) AT the time when the suit was filed, the appellant was in arrears of rent of approximately to the tune of Rs. 1,67,835/ -. A notice was issued to him.

(3.) THE respondent filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC to which reply was filed and after hearing arguments on the application, the trial Court passed a decree of possession holding that as there was an admission with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant and the rate of rent is more than Rs. 3,500/ - as well as the tenancy/lease between the parties had been determined in terms of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act accordingly, the respondent was entitled to a decree of possession. A detailed judgment was passed on 2.2.2012 on an application under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC.