ANUKRITI DUBEY Vs. PARTHA KANSABANIK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the parties.

(2.) The present second appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 30.01.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge -2, South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in RCA No. 34/2015 whereby the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 30.09.2015 in CS(OS) No. 133/2015, allowing the suit of the respondent No. 1 under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC, thereby entitling respondent No. 1 to recover possession of the suit property from the appellant, was affirmed and upheld by the Appellate Court.

(3.) The respondent No. 1 filed a suit bearing CS(OS) No. 133/2015 for a decree of possession and eviction in his favour and against the appellant/defendant No. 2 and respondent No. 2 (husband of the appellant) in respect of suit property No. F -71, DG(S) Apartments, Plot No. 6, Sector 22, Dwarka, New Delhi as well as for mesne profits. The case of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff before the Trial Court was that he is the landlord and absolute owner of the property referred to above (hereinafter called the suit property), where husband of the appellant was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 15,500/ -. A tripartite agreement was executed with respect to the suit property for a period of 11 months, commencing from 15.03.2014, which agreement/lease expired on 15.02.2015. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff, after the expiry of the lease deed, expressed his unwillingness to continue the tenancy of the husband of the appellant and wanted them (appellant and respondent No. 2) to vacate the suit property. Despite repeated requests and a legal notice dated 07.05.2015 to the husband of the appellant, a copy of which was sent to the appellant as well, the suit property was not vacated. Instead, the appellant sent a notice to respondent No. 1/plaintiff intimating him that the suit property would not be vacated because of matrimonial dispute between the appellant and her husband. A request also was made to continue the tenancy. The aforesaid notice was replied by the respondent no. 1/plaintiff in the negative.