ASHOK KUMAR LAYA Vs. TILAK RAJ SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 9.12.2014 passed by Ms. Ina Malhotra, the learned District & Sessions Judge, South -East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in first appeal bearing R.C.A. No. 60/2014 titled Ashok Kumar Laya vs. Tilak Raj Sharma upholding the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2014 passed by Ms. Pooja Aggarwal, the learned Civil Judge, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi.

(2.) BEFORE dealing with the submissions made by Mr. K. Sunil, the learned counsel for the appellant raising the purported substantial question of law, it may be pertinent here to give brief facts of the case.

(3.) THE case which was setup by the respondent/plaintiff was that he had entered into a lease agreement initially with Tanu Laya on 30.7.2003 in respect of the ground floor of the suit property consisting of three rooms, kitchen, latrine, bathroom for a period of 11 months starting from 21.7.2003 at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,500/ - excluding all water and electricity charges. The premises were to be used for residential purposes. It has been alleged that after expiry of 11 months, the tenancy continued on month to month basis on the same terms and conditions. It is alleged that on 23.8.2004, defendant No. 2 (appellant herein) undertook on behalf of both the defendants to vacate the premises on 1.9.2004 along with clearance of arrears of rent for a period of four months but neither he vacated the premises nor paid the arrears of rent. In effect, the case of the respondent/plaintiff was that after expiry of period of 11 months, the appellant/defendant No. 2, Ashok Kumar Laya was the tenant and since they had failed to vacate the premises and clear the rent/damages in terms of the settlement, therefore, the suit for possession, etc. was filed. The appellant/defendant contested the suit and took the plea that the rent of the premises was Rs. 2,200/ - and not Rs. 4,500/ - and therefore, he was protected by the Rent Act and the civil court did not have the jurisdiction. Various other objections were also raised which are not very important to be considered by this court.