HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. NAHINDER SINGH @ MICY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No one was present on behalf of the respondent on the first call. No one is present for the respondent even on the second call. Respondent was not even present on earlier dates of hearings being 24.9.2013, 27.9.2013, 7.11.2013, 5.12.2013, 11.12.2013 and 17.12.2013. I have therefore perused the record and am disposing of this appeal.

(2.) The challenge by means of this appeal is to the impugned judgment of the appellate court dated 24.9.2012 by which the appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 25.8.2011. The trial court by the judgment dated 25.8.2011 decreed the suit of the appellant/landlord under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for possession against the respondent-tenant. The relevant observations of the trial court for decreeing the suit are contained in paras 5 to 9 of the judgment and which read as under:-

(3.) Appellate court set aside this finding on the ground that there is a disputed question of fact as to whether giving of six months advance rent would amount to waiver of notice or creation of a tenancy for six months, and therefore it is to be held that there is no categorical admission for the suit to be decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.