I.S. Exporters vs Y.P. Chopra (Retd.)
2003 Latest Caselaw 1288 Del

Citation : 2003 Latest Caselaw 1288 Del
Judgement Date : 18 November, 2003

Delhi High Court

I.S. Exporters vs Y.P. Chopra (Retd.) on 18 November, 2003

Equivalent citations: 108 (2003) DLT 726, 2004 (72) DRJ 388

Author: R Sodhi

Bench: R Sodhi

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.1.2002 of the learned Additional District Judge in R.C.A. No. 54/ 2002 dismissing the appeal of the appellant while upholding the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2002 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff (respondent herein).

2. The facts of the case are elaborately set out in the judgment under challenge and need not be repeated. Suffice it to say that the trial Court, on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, decreed the suit of the respondent vide its judgment and decree dated 1940.2002. It held that the plaintiff was seeking decree for possession on the basis of admissions made by the defendant in the pleadings and that it had satisfied itself that there existed landlord-tenant relationship which was determined under the contingencies mentioned under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act and that the rate of rent was more than Rs. 3,500/- per month, consequently, decreed the suit after giving exhaustive reasoning. The appellate Court concurred with the reasoning of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant (appellant herein).

3. It was contended before me that the trial Court as also the appellate Court could not have decreed the suit in view of the deposit of Rs. 1,81,000/- lying with the respondent which, according to him, stands admitted by a money receipt dated 10.9.2003. The defendant strongly refutes this receipt and submits that rent has not been paid for nearly five years and that, in any case, the suit as regards mesne profits and adjustment that may arise on account of the so-called advance is still pending before the trial Court where this claim can also be agitated.

4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the findings of the two Courts below, I find that no substantial question of law arises for adjudication under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. R.S.A. 36 of 2003 is dismissed with no order as to costs. The stay granted is vacated.