SUNIL KUMAR Vs. SATISH KUMAR WANCHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 19.2.2015 passed by Sh. Kuldeep Narayan, the learned Additional District Judge, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in R.C.A. No. 65/2014 titled Sunil Kumar vs. Satish Kumar Wanchoo.

(2.) BEFORE dealing with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, it may be pertinent here to give brief facts of the case. The respondent/plaintiff, Satish Kumar Wanchoo, is the owner and landlord of Flat No.E -01, Indraprastha Apartments, I.P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi -92. His case was that he had let out the aforesaid flat to the present appellant/tenant, Sunil Kumar, on a lease of 11 months starting from 1.4.2010 on a monthly rent of Rs.16,000/ -. The lease deed was stated to have been executed on 18.3.2010. On expiry, the aforesaid lease was renewed by a fresh lease deed for a period of 11 months; last lease deed having been executed on 29.6.2012 for a period of 1.5.2012 to 31.3.2013 at an enhanced rent of Rs.19,350/ -. It has been alleged that after termination of tenancy on 31.3.2013, by efflux of time the appellant/tenant was asked to vacate the premises, however, he did not do so. A letter was sent to the appellant/defendant on 4.4.2013, which was duly served upon him. Yet another letter was served on the appellant/defendant on 20.6.2013 requesting him to vacate the premises. A legal notice dated 21.8.2013 was also served on the appellant/defendant. Since he did not vacate the premises, consequently, suit for possession was filed against him.

(3.) AFTER pleadings of the parties, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking judgment on admission. It was urged by the respondent/plaintiff that the appellant/defendant has admitted all the three prerequisites for passing a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for which the application was filed and reply of the appellant/defendant was invited. These three factors were (i) relationship of landlord and tenant, (ii) rate of rent, which was never in dispute, and (iii) the premises under tenancy.