Mr. Firoz Alam, Adv. v. SHAKUNTALA SHARMA

(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? (2) To be referred to the reporter or not? (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

JUDGMENT

ARUNA SURESH. J. (OraH

1. Impugned in this appeal is the judgment and decree of the First AppellateCourt dated20.02.2010, whereby appeal of the appellants filed against judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 3.08.2009 was dismissed.

2. Concisely, case of Respondent Shalcuntla Sharmawas that she had purchased suit.propert>' bearing No.T-807, Flat No.8, RSA No. 70/2010 \ 2010:DHC:15509 2- First Floor, Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi vide registered Sale Deed. On 13.11.2008 appellant No.l Ms. Shabnam took the suit premises on rent for a period of 15 days as she needed the sanie for a short period. Rent was fixed at Rs. 12,000/- for 15 days along with security amount of Rs. 12,000/-. No written agreement was executed. On 20.11.2008 appellant brought her bag and baggage to the suit premises but Respondent did not allow her to enter the premises. The matter was reported to the police and therefore, at the instance of police and property dealers, she being an unmarried young girl was allowed to stay in the suit property for a night. However, on 21.11.2008 she called her family members and illegally and forcibly made her entry in the suit premises. She refused to vacate the premises despite service of legalnotice. Hence, Respondent filed a suit for possession, mesne profits as well as for permanent injunction against the appellant.

3. Mr. Firoz Alam, learned counsel for appellant No.l has argued that there was an oral agreement between the parties on 13.11.2008 whereby the suit premises were let out to 3> V appellant No.l for a period of 15 days on a rent ofRs.12,000/whereas Respondent filed the suit without termination of the tenancy. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Couit therefore went wrong in decreeing the suit ofthe Respondent.

4. Appellants were duly served with summons but none appeared on their behalf despite the fact that the Trial Court granted two opportimities awaiting the written statements of the appellants. Finally, they were proceeded ex-parte on 4.5.2009. The decree, therefore, passed against the appellants is an ex-parte decree. No application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed by the appellant No.1 seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree. However, Regular Appeal was filed which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.02.2010.

5. Appellate Court observed thatan opportunity was given to the appellant to substantiate her claim that she was inducted as a tenantin the suitpremises for 15 days on a rent of Rs.12,000/but, she failed to produce any document to substantiate her claim. Considering the submissions made by appellant No.l only as averments with no legs to stand upon, the Appellate L Court found itself agreeing with the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the case of appellant No.1 herself, she was inducted as a tenant on 13.11.2008 for a period of 15 days on rent of Rs.12,000/-. The period of 15 days expired on 28.11.2008. Therefore, I tenancy of the appellant No.1 stood terminated by afflux of time. It is not in dispute that Respondent had served a legal notice upon appellantNo.1 to vacate the premises. Appellant No.1 has succeeded in retaining the possession ofthe demised premises with her for a period of about IY[2] years after expiry ofher lease period. Under these circumstances, no substantial question of lawneeds formulation as nonearises.

7. It is well settledprinciple of law that jurisdiction of the High Court in the Second Appeal has been limited by effecting amendment in Section 100 CPC and its jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal is now only confined to cases which involve substantial question of law, specifically set out in memo of appeal and formulated by the High Court. s

8. As pointed out above, no substantial question oflaw arises in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

CM APPL No.6576/2010 (u/s. 149 CPC) Appellants are directed to pay the deficient court fee within one week from today, failing which the same shall be recovered by the State as State revenue maccordance with law. Application stands disposed of CM APPL Nos.6574-75/2010 also stand disposed of APRIL 13,2010 vk ARUNA SURESH, J.