ANIL PATHAK Vs. ARVIND GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.836/2015

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction, eviction and mesne profits against the respondents seeking ejectment of the appellants/defendants from the suit property i.e. Property bearing No.201, Mukund House, Azadpur Commercial Complex, Delhi -33 and the same was decreed by the trial court in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the appellants/defendants. To reach such a finding, the trial court found that the landlord -tenant relationship between the parties stood admitted. It was confirmed by an order passed on 25.01.2007 in the proceedings before the Addl. Rent Control Tribunal where the appellant/defendants had admitted the respondent/plaintiff as their landlord and had also paid the rent. The last paid rent was Rs.3,850/ - per month which was voluntarily increased by the appellants/defendants and continued to be paid during the pendency of the suit. Thus, the applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was negated and the rent being in excess of Rs.3,500/ -, the matter ought to have been disposed on the basis of the said admission by the appellants under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. There was absolutely no need for trial in the matter and the parties have been unnecessarily burdened with the same. In this regard, the court found support from Skyland International Private Ltd. v. Kavita P. Lalwani, 2012 191 DLT 594. Without finding any fault with the notice issued by the respondent/plaintiff under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to the appellants, the court observed that the service of summons of a suit for possession is itself sufficient notice to quit in view of the judgment in Jeevan Diesel Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha, 2011 182 DLT 402.

(3.) THE appellants/defendants challenged the said order before the first appellate court which also concurred with the views taken by the trial court and the appeal was dismissed both on merits and being barred by time.