GULSHAN KUMAR Vs. INDU SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant tenant has assailed judgment and decree dtd. 20/3/2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-4, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby suit filed by the present respondent was partly decreed for possession of the tenanted property under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Having heard learned counsel for appellant and having examined the record, I do not find it a fit case to even issue notice of this appeal to the respondent.

(2.) Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for present purposes are as follows. The present respondent filed against the present appellant a suit for recovery of possession of the tenanted property bearing no. A-1/3, Ground Floor, Vandana Apartments, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages/mesne profits, pleading that being owner of the subject property, she had inducted the present appellant as a tenant therein at a monthly rent of Rs.30,000.00 excluding water, electricity and maintenance etc. by way of rent agreement dtd. 4/2/2021, but despite service of quit notice dtd. 23/5/2022, the appellant/tenant did not vacate the subject premises. In his written statement, the appellant admitted having been inducted as tenant in the subject property by the respondent at a monthly rent stipulated in the rent agreement and also admitted having received the quit notice, but further contended that on 10/5/2022 he had deposited Rs.9,10,000.00 in cash with the present respondent while a further sum of Rs.90,000.00 already stood deposited with the present respondent in accordance with previous rent agreement, so fresh rent agreement dtd. 10/5/2022 for a period of five years at a monthly rent of Rs.10,000.00 was executed. Upon completion of pleadings, the present respondent filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for drawing partial decree on the basis of admissions. Going by the above rival pleadings, after hearing both sides, the learned trial court found it a fit case to partly decree the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the basis of admissions qua possession of the subject property. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) During arguments today, learned counsel for appellant contends that the latest rent agreement dtd. 10/5/2022 clearly stipulated in clause 7 thereof that in case the present respondent did not refund the security amount, the tenancy would be renewed automatically for further period of one year. That being so, according to learned counsel for appellant, the judgment and decree passed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is not sustainable in the eyes of law since the security amount has not been refunded till date. No other ground of challenge to the impugned judgment and decree has been raised.