SATYA DEVI Vs. DASS RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal, stands, directed against the concurrently recorded verdicts, by, both the learned courts below, wherethrough, the plaintiff's suit, for, decreeing, the, recoveries, of, arrears of rent, and, also for decreeing relief, of, vacant possession, vis-a-vis, the demised premises, and, against the defendants, hence became decreed.

(2.) The plaintiff is owner in possession, of, the suit land. Through a lease deed, drawn inter-se, the plaintiff, and, the defendant, and, embodied in Ext. PW-1/C, the, demised premises were therethrough hence leased, to, the defendant. The validity, of, execution, of, Ext. PW-1/C, remains unchallenged before this Court. Since prior, to, the institution of the suit, seeking therethrough, hence rendition, of, a decree, for, recovery, of, unliquidated rent, and, also, for, rendition, of, a decree, of, vacant possession, of, the demised premises, from, the defendant, rather, a, legal notice borne in Ext. PW-1/D, and, wherewith postal receipt, borne in Ext. PW-1/E, stood affixed, became issued, and, also became served, upon, the defendant, (ii) and, despite the afore exhibits, becoming tendered, during, the course of his examination-in-chief, yet, the counsel for the defendant, during, the course of his subjecting, the, plaintiff, to, cross- examination, rather, failed to elicit, from him, any acquiescences, for, benumbing the factum, of, the afore legal notice becoming served, upon, the defendant, (ii) thereupon when thereafter, through the afore legal notice, as, embodied in Ext. PW-1/D, the tenancy, vis-a-vis, the demised premises, and, created qua the defendant, became, rather within the ambit, of, Section 106 of The Transfer of Property Act, hence validly terminated, (iii) thereupon, the, thereafter rather institution, of, the suit seeking therethrough rendition, of, a declaratory decree, against, the defendant, for, vacant possession, of, the demised premises, being delivered to the plaintiff, and, also for realization, of, unliquidated rent, and, also mesne profit(s), qua, the demised premises, from, the defendant, became well constituted, and, also the pronounced thereon, hence concurrent decrees, by, both the learned courts below, also assumes validation.

(3.) Be that as it may, the defendant, for, want of his recording his personal appearance before the Court, on 1.5.2013, besides for want of appearance, on, his behalf becoming made by his duly constituted counsel, rather constrained, the learned trial Court, to, order for his being proceeded against ex-parte. However, on 29.6.2013, the afore orders, as, made on 1.5.2013, were set aside. Subsequent thereto, after striking of issues, upon, the apposite civil suit, the plaintiff, became cross-examined, by the learned counsel, for, the defendant, vis-a-vis, all, the, echoings, made in his examination-in-chief. As aforestated, during, the course of cross-examination of the plaintiff, no acquiescences, rather emanated therefrom hence, for, scuttling the plaintiff's espousal qua the tenancy, vis-a-vis, the demised premises, becoming validly terminated, through, a legal notice, borne in Ext. PW-1/D, hence becoming served upon him. Nonetheless thereafter also, especially after closure, of, the plaintiff's evidence, and, upon the defendant, being permitted, to adduce evidence, on the relevant issue, the latter, despite, the apposite civil suit, being listed, on 20.4.2016, rather omitted to record his personal appearance, before the learned trial Judge, (i) nor, his validly authorized counsel recorded therebefore his appearance, and, hence the defendant was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte, and, after the learned trial Judge, concluded hence hearing arguments, upon, Civil Suit No. 29, of, 2013, on 25.4.2016, the, defendant, through, an application, cast under the provisions of Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, strived, to, therethrough, hence espouse, for, setting aside the orders, made, on 24.4.2016, (ii) and, wherethrough he was ordered, to be proceeded against ex-parte. The afore application, became dismissed, under an order, pronounced on 29.4.2016.