POOJA SHARMA Vs. GURMEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner (plaintiff before the learned trial Court) has assailed the order dated 18th September, 2012 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed. The case of the petitioner before the learned trial Court was that one Sh. Harbans Lal son of Late Sh. Komal Ram Arora was the earlier owner of Flat No. 22, situated on first floor in Surair Co -operative Group Housing Society, plot No. 7, Sector -15, Rohini, Delhi -110085 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property") and inducted the respondent (defendant in suit proceedings) as his tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 2000/ - excluding other charges vide an agreement dated 28th April, 1995 for a period of eleven months. The tenancy of the respondent continued subject to respondent's revising the rent and lastly, the respondent was paying Rs. 3500/ - per month as the rent exclusive of other charges. It was further submitted that said Sh. Harbans Lal terminated the monthly tenancy of the respondent vide legal notice dated 18th April, 2006 since the respondent did not vacate the premises earlier and the tenancy of the respondent was not continued by Sh. Harbans Lal and respondent started depositing the rent of Rs. 3500/ - with the Court of the Rent Controller.

(2.) IT was submitted that the respondent filed a Suit bearing No. 1002/2006 for permanent injunction in April, 2006 against Sh. Harbans Lal for restraining him from dispossessing the respondent from the said property without due process of law and on 2nd May, 2006, Sh. Harbans Lal made the statement in the said suit not to dispossess the respondent from the property without following due process of law. Accordingly the said suit was disposed off on 2nd May, 2006.

(3.) THE respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present petitioner bearing Suit No. 441/2010 which was disposed off by the learned Administrative Civil Judge -cum -Addl. Rent Controller vide order dated 18th August, 2011 as the petitioner agreed not to dispossess the respondent without due process of law.