MADHU SUDAN Vs. VALSALA JAYAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by appellant against order dated 28.3.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi. Vide impugned order application of respondent under Order XXXIX Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code) was allowed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of this case are that respondent is the owner/landlord of suit property. Appellant was inducted as tenant in this property after having executed lease dated 19.7.2006. The rent payable was Rs.20,000/- per month with effect from June, 2006. It is alleged that appellant paid rent only upto September, 2006. Three cheques issued by appellant with effect from October, 2006 to December, 2006 have been dishonoured and complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against appellant is pending in the court. Appellant has not paid rent with effect from October, 2006 till April, 2007 and is thus an unauthorised occupant of the property. It has also been alleged that appellant filed forged receipts which are inadmissible in evidence in terms of Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act.

(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code are applicable only when a party admits that he holds money or other thing capable of delivery as a trustee for another party. Appellant has not made any such admission. On this point, learned counsel referred a decision of this Court, Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing vs. M/s Jawahar Mal and Sons and others. AIR 2003 Delhi 208 and Smt. Lalbiakthangi vs. Shri H. Duna, AIR 1995 Gauhati 12.