DEVENDER BHATI Vs. CHANDER KANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal assails the judgment dated 29.10.2014 passed by the First Appellate Court, i.e. learned ADJ-2 (Shahdra), Karkardooma Court Delhi, whereby the first appeal preferred by the defendant/appellant, i.e. RCA No. 46/2014 was dismissed. The appellant had preferred the said first appeal to challenge the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2012 passed by the Trial Court, viz. the Civil Judge (North East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Suit No. 249/2010, decreeing the suit preferred by the plaintiff/respondent for possession and mesne profit against the defendant/appellant herein.

(2.) The plaintiff/respondent instituted the said suit on the premise that she is the owner of property bearing no. 263, Street no. 5, Durga Puri Extension, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). She stated that the defendant/appellant approached the plaintiff through one Mr. Ashok Suri to take the suit property for storing goods. The plaintiff allowed the defendant to keep his goods in the suit property for a period of six months, without charging any rent or other amount from the defendant/appellant. Thereafter, the appellant started selling milk from the suit property. The plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the premises. The defendant then approached the plaintiff through Mr. Ashok Suri and sought three months time to vacate the premises. However, the same was not vacated. Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent served a legal notice dated 08.07.2010 upon the defendant/appellant to vacate the premises. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant/appellant was in illegal occupation of the suit property for 10 years, and did not pay the electricity charges till date of the notice. The defendant/appellant sent a false reply to the legal notice alongwith a draft no. 364794 for Rs. 1,500 dated 20.07.2010. The plaintiff did not accept the draft, and preferred the suit in question. The plaintiff/respondent sought a decree of possession qua the suit property alongwith the mesne profit @ Rs. 5,000/- per month with effect from August, 2010 till the defendant hands over the peaceful and vacant possession.

(3.) Defendant/Appellant while defending the suit, claimed not to know any Mr. Ashok Suri. He further claimed to be a tenant in the suit property, and the plaintiff/respondent to be his landlady. The defendant/appellant claimed to have started his business in the year 1997. He claimed that the plaintiff rented out the suit property to the defendant/appellant @ Rs. 300/- per month, which was increased to Rs. 500/- per month in November, 2009 as the defendant/appellant was harassed and pressurized by the plaintiff. Further, the defendant/appellant claimed to have always paid the rent and electricity charges, which was charged @ Rs. 200/- per month by the plaintiff/respondent. Lastly, the defendant/appellant stated that the tenancy was governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) and, thus, was claimed to be barred under Section 50, as the rent was below Rs.3,500/- per month.