SANTOSH SOLANKI Vs. DADA DEV PRABHANDHAK SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal impugns the judgment of the first appellate court dated 18.12.2013 by which the first appellate court has dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The first appeal was filed against the judgment of the trial court dated 11.7.2013 by which the trial court decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff/landlord under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

(2.) THE trial court has, by a very thorough and exhaustive judgment held that the three requirements for decreeing the suit for possession exists in the present case because surely and firstly the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted by the appellant -defendant, the second issue with respect to notice of termination of tenancy having been served stands settled by the judgment of this Court in the case of Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Ltd. Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) & Anr. 183(2011) DLT 712 and thirdly and finally the appellant -plaintiff cannot have protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act inasmuch as, by mere urbanization of an area, automatically Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 will not apply in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mitter Sen Jain Vs. Shakuntala Devi (2000) 9 SCC 720 and which Act applies only when a notification is issued under Section 1 sub -Section 2 of the Delhi Rent Control Act by which operation of the Act is extended to a specific particular area.

(3.) NO doubt, the first appellate court has dismissed the appeal as barred by time, however, taking that the first appeal would have been filed in time, I have heard the counsel for the appellant with respect to merits of the matter.