PRITI SHARMA Vs. JATINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This fresh RFA is coming up for hearing today for admission. On the first call it was passed over as this Court declined the request of the appellant for adjournment on the ground that appellant's counsel is busy in the Supreme Court. In my opinion, seeking adjournment in admission matters is not justified on the ground that counsel for the appellant is busy in another Court because it is easy not to get a case listed on a particular date if the Advocate is not available. Also, it is seen that actually the appeal has no merits and in my opinion therefore unnecessary adjournment is sought. Even after pass over and the matter being called out after two hours it is stated that counsel for the appellant will not be available and this Court refuses to accept that for two hours counsel for the appellant will be consistently and continuously on his legs in the matter in the Supreme Court and had no time to appear in this Court.

(2.) It is seen that the present first appeal is against the judgment of the trial court dated 31.5.2017 decreeing the suit for possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC filed by the respondent/plaintiff/landlord against the appellant/tenant/defendant.

(3.) In Delhi, a suit filed for possession in a civil court by a landlord against the tenant is decreed once relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted, and the rate of rent is above Rs.3500/- per month. The service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 terminating tenancy helps the respondent/plaintiff, but this is not a sine qua non as service of summons in the suit have to be taken as service under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Limited Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) & Anr., (2011) 183 DLT 712.