MANORANJANA SHARMA Vs. NARESH KUMAR MANSHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal impugns the judgment (dated 29.11.2012 of the Court of Additional District Judge-04, South District, New Delhi in CS No.175/2011 filed by the respondent) on admissions of ejectment of the appellant from the premises earlier in her tenancy.

(2.) Notice of the appeal was issued. The counsels were heard on 27.08.2013. However upon the counsel for the appellant contending that the appellant in her written statement had disputed the service of notice dated 01.06.2011 of determination of tenancy and having sent a reply dated 06.06.2011 thereto and realizing that the Trial Court record had not been requisitioned, the appeal was admitted for hearing and the Trial Court record requisitioned. The appellant thereafter filed CM No.13653/2013 impugning the decree for recovery of possession / ejectment against the appellant which had since been drawn up by the Trial Court. The counsels were heard further on 10.09.2013, on which date while the contention of the counsel for the respondent was that the appellant in her written statement had admitted giving of the reply dated 06.06.2011 to the notice dated 01.06.2011, the contention of the counsel for the appellant was that there was no such admission. Finding the said reply dated 06.06.2011 to have been of an advocate on behalf of the appellant, it was enquired from the counsel for the appellant whether the appellant had engaged the said advocate. Upon the counsel for the appellant expressing ignorance, the personal presence of the appellant for today was directed. The appellant has appeared and the counsel under instructions from her states that the reply dated 06.06.2011 was indeed got sent by the appellant to the legal notice dated 01.06.2011 of determination of tenancy. The appellant tenders unconditional apology for wrongfully instructing the counsel that she had not sent any such reply. Considering that the appellant is a lady and in view of the remorse expressed by her, it is not deemed proper to take any further action against the appellant for indulging in falsehood, though the appellant is cautioned to be careful in future.

(3.) The further contention of the counsel for the appellant is that there was no admission in the written statement of the appellant / defendant for judgment for recovery of possession / ejectment being passed without any trial.