SHIV PAUL SAGAR Vs. VISHAKHA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CERTAIN litigations in this country are nothing but gross abuse of the process of law and the present appeal is one such litigation. I am making this strong statement before adverting to the facts because the suit premises are outside the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as the rent amount is more than Rs.3500/ - per month and the appellants -defendants have continued in the obstinate possession of the suit premises in spite of termination of tenancy way back on 18.1.2008. Today we are in 2014. Further, not only the appellant/defendant/tenant did not file written statement and right to file the same was closed, that order became final as it was not challenged. Respondent -plaintiff/landlord led evidence and consequently the suit was decreed by the judgment dated 20.7.2012. The first appellate court heard and decided the appeal on merits in spite of appeal clearly being barred by time, only in the interest of justice by condoning the delay by payment of costs of Rs. 2000/ -.

(2.) IN the city of Delhi a civil court has jurisdiction to decide the suit for possession filed by the landlord against the ex -tenant once three facts exist: - (i) there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; (ii) the rate of rent was more than Rs.3500/ - per month and (iii) monthly tenancy has been terminated by serving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

(3.) BOTH the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant -defendant are misconceived and the judgment of the trial court shows that the notice dated 18.1.2008 was proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/3. Postal receipts were proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/6. UPC receipt was proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/7. The envelope with the AD cards were proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/8 to Ex.PW1/11, and which were sent to two separate addresses of appellant -defendant. As already stated above, whereas the appellant -defendant led no evidence, the respondent -plaintiff stepped into the witness box and proved her case.