ADARSH KUMAR PUNIYANI Vs. LAJWANTI PIPLANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, namely, ADJ -04 (NW), Rohini Courts, Delhi in RCA No. 29/2015, whereby the first appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant has been dismissed, and the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2015 passed in Suit No. 340/2014 under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC qua the relief of possession/ejectment has been affirmed.

(2.) The respondent filed the suit for, inter alia, claiming the relief of ejectment of the appellant/defendant on the premise that the plaintiff is a senior citizen and absolute owner of the property, i.e. upper ground floor, second and third floor of property no.B -80 (old plot no.74), Rishi Nagar, Rani Bagh, Shakur Basti, New Delhi. The plaintiff stated that she built up the entire building containing stilt parking and the three floors in collaboration with a builder in the year 2011. The plaintiff sold the ownership of the third floor in 2011 itself. She stated that in December 2011, the defendant approached her to take the second floor of the suit property on rent. The second floor of the suit property was accordingly leased out by the plaintiff to the defendant vide lease agreement dated 03.12.2011 for a period of 11 months on a monthly rent of Rs. 12,000/ - excluding water and electricity charges. The defendant deposited a refundable security amount of Rs. 30,000/ -.

(3.) The tenancy of the appellant/defendant commenced from 01.12.2011. She stated that in terms of the agreement, the rent was liable to be increased by 10% over and above the existing rent on the expiry of 11 months. Consequently, from 01.11.2012, the rent was increased to Rs. 13,200/ -. She stated that the defendant paid the agreed rent of Rs. 13,200/ - till January 2014 and thereafter he started making excuses for not making payment of rent due to his poor financial condition. On the assurance of the defendant that he would make payment of the outstanding rent within the next two months, the plaintiff did not initiate action against him. On 29.04.2014 when the plaintiff demanded the outstanding rent, the defendant and his wife quarrelled with the plaintiff and her daughter in law. The plaintiff called the police by dialing no.100. The defendant still did not make payment of the outstanding amount.