Gurjit Singh vs Beer Singh
2011 Latest Caselaw 820 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                               RFA No. 67/2011


%                                                         10th February, 2011

GURJIT SINGH                                               ...... Appellant
                          Through:       Mr. P.S. Rana, Adv.

                          VERSUS


BEER SINGH                                                   ...... Respondent
                          Through:       None

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

    1.   Whether the Reporters of local papers 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?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)


1.            The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under

Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is to the impugned

judgment and decree dated 11.10.2010 whereby the suit of the

respondent/plaintiff/landlord      has       been        decreed    against       the

appellant/defendant/tenant      for   recovery      of    possession,   arrears    of

rent/mesne profits and electricity charges due and payable to the local

electricity authority on account of a bill raised for dishonest abstraction of

energy by the Electricity Authority towards consumption of electricity by

the appellant.


RFA No. 67/2011                                                         Page 1 of 3
 2.          The learned counsel for the appellant states that he does not

press the appeal so far as the relief of possession of the tenanted property

granted to the respondent is concerned but only presses the appeal with

respect to money decree for arrears of rent/mesne profits and the

electricity bill charges.   Counsel for the appellant contends that in the

written statement, the appellant had disputed the rate of rent and the

electricity charges.


3.          The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is clearly

misconceived because the admitted fact is that the defence of the

appellant/defendant was struck off and no evidence at all was led on

behalf of the appellant/defendant in the Trial Court. On the other hand,

the respondent/plaintiff appeared in the case and led evidence to prove

his case.    The respondent/plaintiff not only proved the arrears of

rent/mesne profits but also proved that the electricity bill was raised by

the Electricity Authority on account of dishonest abstraction of energy by

the appellant from the meter installed in tenanted premises. Inspection

report of the authority is exhibited as Ex.PW2/1, copy of the show cause

notice is exhibited as Ex.PW2/2, copy of the personal hearing notice is

exhibited as Ex.PW2/3, copy of the speaking order passed by the authority

is exhibited as Ex.PW2/4 and copy of the theft bill is exhibited as

Ex.PW2/5.


4.          In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with

the impugned judgment and decree in the appeal because the evidence

as led by the respondent/plaintiff remained unrebutted as no evidence
RFA No. 67/2011                                                  Page 2 of 3
 was led by the appellant/defendant. The appeal is therefore without any

merit and is therefore dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own

costs. Trial court record be sent back.


CM No.2117/20011(stay)


            No orders are required to be passed in this application as the

main appeal is disposed of.    The application stands disposed of having

become infructuous.




FEBRUARY 10, 2011                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ak