KISHAN GUPTA Vs. CHANDER PRABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 26th November, 2019 by which the ld. Appellate Court hearing an appeal against the decree of eviction dated 21st October, 2019, has refused to grant stay of the operation of the eviction. The submission of Ms. Nandni Sahwney, ld. counsel appearing for the Petitioners/tenants (hereinafter "tenants") is that the tenants have been in lawful possession since 1957 and have a strong case on merits. It is her submission that the Trial Court has erred in the manner in which the evidence has been appreciated. She submits that the rent was being paid to the various predecessors-in-interest and lastly to Mrs. Tripat Kaur by the father of the tenants. The tenants run a shop from where vegetables/eggs etc. are being sold in property no.6/10, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. She submits that the Trial Court's order decreeing the eviction petition failed to consider the various contradictions in the evidence of the Respondent/landlord (hereinafter "landlord"). The legal notice and the oral evidence showed factual inconsistencies and these facts ought to be considered by the ld. Appellate Court. The rejection of stay at this stage would result in the decree being executed while the appeal remains pending.

(2.) She relies upon Gangubai Bablya Chaudhary and Ors. v. Sitaram Bhalchandra Sukhtankar and Ors., (1983) 4 SCC 31 to assert that once a tenant is in settled possession, he cannot be disturbed except in accordance with law.

(3.) She further relies on Subhash Chand Chhabra, Shyam Chhabra both S/o U.M Chhabra v. Radhey Govind Rohatgi S/o B.K.D Rohatgi, 2016 (227) DLT 51 to submit that no notice of termination of tenancy was given in the present suit by the landlord though she was fully aware of the shop was being run in the suit premises.