SUDESH KUMAR VASUDEVA Vs. VEENA GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS landlord-plaintiff's petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the order dated 30.1.2004, dismissing his application under Order XII Rule 6. The learned Civil Judge has come to the conclusion that the tenant-defendant has disputed the maintainability of the suit alleging that the tenant-respondent is a trespasser. It is yet to be proved as to whether the registered A.D. notice was served upon the defendant or not by adducing evidence. Therefore, the Civil Judges has come to the conclusion by recording the following order :

(2.) IT is pertinent to mention that the landlord-petitioner after the suit for ejectment of the tenant-defendants from the demised have claimed recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 24,000/- on account of unauthorised use and occupation with effect from 1.02.2003 till the date of filing of the suit and further damages @ of Rs. 200/- per day thereafter. During the pendency of the suit an application under Order XII Rule 6 was filed, claiming that the whole claim made by the landlord-petitioner stands admitted and judgment and decree be assessed (passed ?) in his favour. That application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been filed by the landlord-petitioner.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that the evidence is yet to be adduced before the courts below as the defendant has not admitted any averment made by the landlord-plaintiff. It is only in cases of categorical admission of the defendant that Order XII Rule 6 would be attracted. Present is not the case where Order XII Rule 6 could be invoked as number of facts have been disputed. The evidence is required to be adduced to prove these facts. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.