PREM GABA Vs. PINKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has impugned the order dated 02.06.2016 by which order the application of the petitioner/plaintiff filed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking passing of judgment and decree against the defendant was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner has filed a suit for possession of tenanted premises, recovery of rent, usage charges/mesne profit, damages and permanent injunction etc. against the defendant/respondent. It is averred that the petitioner is the owner of the house No.130, Pocket D-13, Sector-7, Rohini Delhi. The respondent is the tenant and he was inducted in the house for a period of eleven months commencing from 22.09.2010 at the rate of monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- per month. Subsequently, the rate of rent has been increased. The defendant had paid the last rent for the month commencing from 22.05.2013 till 21.06.2013. The plaintiff sent a legal notice on 19.07.2014 which is said to have been duly served on the respondent.

(3.) The defendant/respondent has entered appearance and filed her written statement. She admitted that the lease deed dated 22.09.2010 was executed and she also admitted that from that date she has been running a Beauty Parlour. It is averred that on 07.05.2013 the defendant/respondent had agreed to purchase the suit property against a sale consideration of Rs.17,00,000/- and an oral agreement of the sale/purchase of the suit property was entered into between the plaintiff/petitioner and the defendant/respondent. The defendant/respondent is said to have given a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in the month of June, 2013. It is further averred that the defendant/respondent asked for acknowledgement of the payment by the plaintiff/petitioner but the petitioner said that there is no need of the same. The plaintiff/petitioner also stated that from now the defendant/respondent is not required to pay the rent of the suit property and she had now become the owner of the suit property by virtue of the oral Agreement to Sell dated 07.05.2013 and that the defendant was no more a tenant in the suit property.