M R SAHNI Vs. DORIS RANDHAWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has suffered 2 concurrent decrees of ejectment and mesne profits against him. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 5/12/2007 affirming the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Judge dated 21/5/2007 instant second appeal has been filed.

(2.) NOTWITHSTANDING various questions framed in the memo of appeal at the hearing today, learned senior counsel for the appellant urges that 4 substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the instant appeal.

(3.) THE first substantial question of law sought to be projected by learned counsel for the appellant is: whether the suit for ejectment was barred under order IX Rule 9 CPC on account of an earlier suit for ejectment being dismissed in default and not being restored? The second question sought to be projected is whether by the act of filing a petition for eviction before the learned Rent Controller and alleging that the rent of the suit property was rs. 350qa per month did notice Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/3 dated 10/8/1990 and 22/1/1990 respectively stood waived? Third question projected is whether suit by only one co-owner was maintainable? Lastly it is urged that on the evidence on record damages awarded towards mesne profits @ Rs. 25,000. 00 per mon. th from 1/5/2002 till realization cannot be sustained.