KEW PRECISION PARTS (PVT.) LTD. Vs. SANDHYA ADLAKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the above captioned two appeals are taken up together for hearing as they are directed against common impugned judgment of 26th July, 2014 vide which respondents -plaintiffs' suits for possession of two adjoining premises in property bearing No. 41, DLF Industrial Area, Najafgarh Road, Delhi (which were subject matter of suit No. 295 and 297/13/00) were decreed. The concurrent finding returned by both the courts below is that the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties is admitted. However, vide impugned judgment the parties have been permitted to lead evidence on the quantum of damages and mesne profits and on this limited aspect, the matter has been remanded back to trial court.

(2.) THE question raised in these two second appeals by learned senior counsel for appellant is whether the deposition of an attorney of a party is admissible in evidence and as to whether suit for possession of a property can be decreed by treating unregistered lease of the suit property as month to month.

(3.) SIMILARLY , it was pointed out that Mr. Sanjay Adlakha in Suit No. 295/13/00 has clearly deposed that he was aware of the facts of the case, as he was following the subject matter of this suit and on instructions from respondents, he had got prepared a site plan from a draftsman after visiting the suit premises. Thus, it was submitted by respondents -plaintiffs that Mr. Sanjay Adlakha (PW -3) has clearly proved the case of plaintiffs and statutory notice of six months was given to appellant -defendant before terminating the lease of the suit premises. Thus, it was submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment or the trial court judgment.