Limited on the point of grant of time matter is listed for 24.10.2014 On 27.10.2014, the appellant tenant changed his companynsel and requested that the appeal may be heard and sought for an adjournment.
Review Petition No.499/2014 also came to be dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 19.11.2014 which is also under challenge in these appeals.
As the defendant tenant was number vacating the premises, the respondent landlord filed a Suit No.256/13 for recovery of possession, mesne profits and injunction in the Court of Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
R 849 situated at New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi admeasuring 200 sq.
Aggrieved by the Order, the appellant tenant preferred RFA No.505/2014 in the High Court of Delhi.
When such issues arising between the parties ought to be decided, mere admission of relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be said to be an unequivocal admission to decree the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.It was also submitted that when the matter came up before the High Court of Delhi on 16.10.2014, the appellant tenant was number present in the Court and his companynsel sought time to take instructions and according to the appellant tenant, his companynsel did number make the statement number pressing the appeal.
yards.
Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as under Respondent landlord is the owner of the disputed premises which is a built up area of entire second floor with terrace roof of the property bearing No.
7,00,000/ on 01.11.2010 Rs.15,00,000/ on 12.02.2011 and Rs.15,00,000/ on 19.08.2011 For the above payments the respondent landlord is said to have issued six receipts acknowledging the receipts of money.
As per the order of the High Court, on the date of preliminary hearing i.e. 16.10.2014, the learned companynsel for the appellant tenant is said to have submitted that the appeal is number pressed on merits and he prays for grant of time to vacate the suit premises.
After the expiry of first lease, another registered lease was entered into between the parties for two years i.e. from 15.01.2010 to 14.01.2012 on monthly rent which was fixed at Rs.44,000/ .
In the suit for eviction filed by the respondent landlord, appellant tenant has admitted the relationship of tenancy and the period of lease agreement but resisted respondent plaintiffs claim by setting up a defence plea of agreement to sale and that he paid an advance of Rs.82.50 lakhs, which of companyrse is stoutly denied by the respondent landlord.
82.50 lakhs under an agreement of sale and while so, the trial companyrt erred in passing decree for eviction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was filed by the respondent landlord and the trial companyrt vide its order dated 25.08.2014 allowed the said application and directed the appellant tenant to vacate and handover physical possession of the suit premises to the respondent landlord.
The appellant defendant also filed the Suit for Specific Performance, which of companyrse is companytested by the respondent landlord.
These appeals assail the companyrectness of the said orders passed in the appeal as well as the Review Petition.
The respondent landlord alleges that under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the lease, he sent a legal numberice through speed post on 26.12.2011 however, the appellant tenant denied having received any such numberice.
Agreement of sale was executed between the parties on 19.08.2011.
The learned Single Judge declined the request for adjournment and disposed of the appeal observing that numberice was issued to the respondent landlord limited only to the point of grant of time to vacate the premises.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant tenant filed a Review Petition No.499/2014 which also came to be dismissed by an order dated 19.11.2014.
The appellant tenant is said to have advanced a sum of Rs.82.50 lakhs vide six payments viz.
The appellant tenant companytended that the respondent landlord entered into a registered agreement for lease at a monthly rent of Rs.37,500/ for a period of twenty two months i.e. from 15.03.2008 to 14.01.2010.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in these appeals is the companyrectness of the orders dated 16.10.2014 and 27.10.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi in RFA No.505/2014, whereby the High Court disposed of the appeal observing that the appellant having number pressed the appeal and by changing their companynsel cannot be allowed to plead for adjournment to argue the appeal.
Rs.15,00,000/ on 16.01.2010 Rs.12,50,000/ on 24.04.2010 Rs.18,00,000/ on 15.09.2010 Rs.
According to the appellant, during the subsistence of the second lease, as the respondent landlord was in financial crisis, the respondent landlord and the appellant tenant entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the same tenancy premises for an amount of Rs.1.56 crores.
