(1.) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 28. 4. 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Delhi reviewing earlier order dated 16. 10. 2006 of its predecessor and setting aside a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that a suit for recovery of possession of tenanted premises and mesne profits was preferred by the petitioner before the Civil Judge since the premises was situated in Revenue Estate of Village Bindapur, Delhi an area outside the purview of Delhi Rent Control Act. The petitioner pleaded that the premises was let out to respondent on month to month tenancy at monthly rent of rs. 800/ -. The tenancy was terminated vide a notice dated 22. 7. 2005 duly served upon the defendant. In the Written Statement, defendant/respondent admitted that he was a tenant in the premises. He also admitted service of notice dated 22. 7. 2005 however, he denied the rate of rent as Rs. 800/- and stated that the rent was only Rs. 100/- p. m. The defendant had not denied the non applicability of DRC Act. The learned Civil Judge considered the pleadings of the parties and observed that since tenancy was month to month, it was validly terminated by serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act required under the law therefore, the landlord was entitled to a decree of possession of the suit premises.
(3.) AGAINST this order of 16. 10. 2006, the respondent/tenant did not prefer an appeal and preferred a review petition on the ground that the learned civil Judge had failed to consider certain facts like in a suit earlier filed by the respondent, a status quo order was granted; the landlord had promised to make construction of a latrine and bathroom demolished by him; the landlord was not the owner of the suit premises.