Full Text
Translation output
A-61
% 14.7.2011
Present: Mr.J.S.Bhasin, Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM No.12584/2011 (for exemption) in CM(M) No.793/2011
*
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM(M) No.793/2011 & CM No.12 583/2011
The order impugned before the Court is the order dated
30.4.2011 which has affirmed the finding of the Civil Judge whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule
6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the
Code") seeking possession of the suit property i.e. the property bearing No.47-A, Ground Floor, Block and Pocket-B 1/A, Janakpuri, New Delhi had been decreed in favour of the plaintiff. This was in view of the admissions made by the defendants. It is not in dispute that the defendant no.3 i.e. Davinder Mohan Singh Oberoi is in occupation of the suit property.
The facts as emanating are that initially a lease deed had been executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant no.1 (M/s
Bharti Televentures Ltd.) this was on 20.12.2005; the lease was for an initial period of 11 months; it was fOr the residence of the employee of the defendant no.1 namely Navpreet Singh (defendant no.2); after the expiry of this lease in December 2006, defendant no.3 (Davinder Mohan Singh Oberoi)/ the petitioner (father of
2011:DHC:7809 defendant No.2) started living in the suit premises and the relationship' of landlord and tenant continued between the plaintiff and defendant no.3. There is no dispute to this factual scenario.
Contention before this Court is that a decree under Order 12
Rule 6 of the Code could not have followed as the defendant had denied the receipt of the legal notice. The written statement filed by defendants no.2 and 3 (joint written statement) has been perused. In para 4 which is the reply on merits, it is admitted that the notice dated 12.9.2008 was sent by the plaintiff; the only contention was that this notice had been sent after a suit for permanent injunction had been filed by defendant no.3/petitioner against the plaintiff and as such the notice was an afterthought.
There is no other dispute about this notice. Relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted, rate of rent is admittedly more than
Rs.3500/-; receipt of the legal notice dated 12.9.2008 which has fulfilled the twin requirements of Section 106 of the Transfer of
Property Act; necessarily a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the
Code had to follow.
% 14.7.2011
Present: Mr.J.S.Bhasin, Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM No.12584/2011 (for exemption) in CM(M) No.793/2011
*
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM(M) No.793/2011 & CM No.12 583/2011
The order impugned before the Court is the order dated
30.4.2011 which has affirmed the finding of the Civil Judge whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule
6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the
Code") seeking possession of the suit property i.e. the property bearing No.47-A, Ground Floor, Block and Pocket-B 1/A, Janakpuri, New Delhi had been decreed in favour of the plaintiff. This was in view of the admissions made by the defendants. It is not in dispute that the defendant no.3 i.e. Davinder Mohan Singh Oberoi is in occupation of the suit property.
The facts as emanating are that initially a lease deed had been executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant no.1 (M/s
Bharti Televentures Ltd.) this was on 20.12.2005; the lease was for an initial period of 11 months; it was fOr the residence of the employee of the defendant no.1 namely Navpreet Singh (defendant no.2); after the expiry of this lease in December 2006, defendant no.3 (Davinder Mohan Singh Oberoi)/ the petitioner (father of
2011:DHC:7809 defendant No.2) started living in the suit premises and the relationship' of landlord and tenant continued between the plaintiff and defendant no.3. There is no dispute to this factual scenario.
Contention before this Court is that a decree under Order 12
Rule 6 of the Code could not have followed as the defendant had denied the receipt of the legal notice. The written statement filed by defendants no.2 and 3 (joint written statement) has been perused. In para 4 which is the reply on merits, it is admitted that the notice dated 12.9.2008 was sent by the plaintiff; the only contention was that this notice had been sent after a suit for permanent injunction had been filed by defendant no.3/petitioner against the plaintiff and as such the notice was an afterthought.
There is no other dispute about this notice. Relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted, rate of rent is admittedly more than
Rs.3500/-; receipt of the legal notice dated 12.9.2008 which has fulfilled the twin requirements of Section 106 of the Transfer of
Property Act; necessarily a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the
Code had to follow.
JUDGMENT
suffers from no infirmity.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 14, 2011 nandan
2011:DHC:7809
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 14, 2011 nandan
2011:DHC:7809