SANGEETA Vs. ANITA ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rsa No. 23/2016 and C.M. Appl. No. 2323/2016 (under Order XLI Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC for suspension of impugned order) and C.M. Appl. No. 2325/2016 (for condonation of delay of 21 days in re-filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act)

(2.) The following aspects are undisputed as appearing from the record of the trial court, as also the judgments of the courts below; and also as per the arguments before this Court:-

(3.) The only dispute is that whether the appellant/defendant is a tenant in the property no. J-5/49, 1st floor back portion, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi or she is a tenant in the property no. J-5/49A, 1st floor back portion, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. I may note that the appellant/defendant is a tenant in a two room set on the back portion of the first floor of the property, and which area of tenancy is also not in dispute. The appellant/defendant claims that property number is not J-5/49, but J-5/49A. In fact, now even the respondent/plaintiff admits that the property is J-5/49A and which number was originally wrongly written as J-5/49 in the plaint as also in the rent agreement which was executed between the parties, the rent agreement being proved on record before the trial court as Ex.PW1/1. I may note that respondent/plaintiff at the conclusion of arguments before the trial court had moved an application for amending the plaint as also taking the evidence to be read as not being with respect to the property no. J-5/49, 1st floor back portion, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi as the tenanted premises but the tenanted premises being property no. J-5/49A, 1st floor back portion, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, but that application was dismissed by the trial court.