BALBIR SINGH Vs. SHRI KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 11.4.2008 and 1.11.2008 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon (hereinafter described as 'the trial Court') and the District Judge, Gurgaon (referred to hereinafter as 'the first appellate Court').

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for possession of House No. 1177, Sector 15-II, Gurgaon (hereinafter called as 'the demised premises'). A decree for recovery of Rs. 64,000/- as rent with mesne profits along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum was also prayed for. Still further, a decree for recovery of Rs. 8000/- per month as rent was also sought. It was pleaded that the demised premises, which is owned by the plaintiff, was leased out to the defendant vide a lease agreement executed in the month of April,2004 for a period of eleven months commencing from 1.4.2004 to 28.2.2005 and the monthly rent of Rs. 8000/- was agreed upon between the parties; that the lease was further extended up to 31.5.2005 by a fresh agreement dated 6.2.2005; that the defendant's possession over the demised premises after 1.6.2005 was unauthorised; and that although no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 (for short, 'the 1882 Act') was required for vacating the demised premises, yet, notice dated 4.7.2005 was given to the defendant to do so, which was duly received by him.

(3.) Upon notice, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement contesting the suit. He, however, admitted the tenancy and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and him qua the demised premises, but denied the monthly rent of Rs. 8000/-. It was pleaded that the agreed monthly rent was Rs. 3000/-. The inception of the tenancy with effect from 1.4.2004 was also denied and it was pleaded that he was in occupation of the premises for the last many years and the plaintiff never issued any receipt regarding payment of rent. It was denied that the tenancy had ever been extended for three months by way of a separate agreement. It was pleaded that suit for permanent injunction was filed by the defendant seeking to restrain the plaintiff from dispossessing him, which was ultimately withdrawn as the plaintiff had made a statement that he would not dispossess the defendant forcibly.