M/S. Bata India Ltd. vs M/S. Atma Ram Builders (P) Ltd.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1776 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         RFA No.180/2011

%                                                       25th March, 2011

M/S. BATA INDIA LTD.                                    ...... Appellant

                          Through:     Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with
                                       Mr. Raman Kapur & Mr. Dhiraj Sachdeva,
                                       Advocates



                          VERSUS

M/S. ATMA RAM BUILDERS (P) LTD.                         ...... Respondent

                          Through:     Mr. Amit Sethi, Advocate

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)



Caveat No.262/2011 in RFA No.180/2011

              Counsel for the caveator appears. Caveat stands discharged.

RFA No.180/2011

              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   15th   January,   2011   whereby   the   suit    of   the

respondent/plaintiff/landlord for possession has been decreed under Order

12 Rule 6 CPC. The contention which was raised before the Trial Court and

which is also being raised before me by the appellant/tenant is that the

RFA No.180/2011                                                    Page 1 of 3
 mezzanine floor of which the rent is above Rs.3,500/- per month (and

therefore does not fall under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) has no

independent entrance and therefore the parties agreed that both the floors

i.e. of the ground floor and mezzanine floor either stay together and go

together. This is disputed by learned counsel for the appellant who, states

that both the tenancies were to operate independently and that there could

be a decree for possession with respect to mezzanine floor only for which

respondent could have made a separate provision, inter alia, for ingress and

egress of the property. Thus there is a disputed question of fact which

requires trial as to whether the tenancy of the mezzanine floor will or will not

operate independently of the ground floor portion. I make no observation in

one way or the other as it is the prerogative of the Trial Court which will

decide the case finally as to whether the respondent is right or whether the

appellant is right. Counsel for the parties, however, agree that the case can

be disposed of expeditiously, not later than 6 months from the date on which

the Trial Court receives the copy of this order. Counsel for the parties also

agree that none of them will take unnecessary adjournments before the

Court below and the Trial Court will impose the heavy costs with respect to

any unnecessary adjournment which shall be asked by either side.

Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of by consent that the impugned

judgment is set aside, however, all questions of law and fact are left open for

being decided at the stage of final arguments in the suit. The Trial Court

shall make every endeavour to complete the trial and the decision in the

case within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of this order. The

appeal is accordingly disposed of.




RFA No.180/2011                                                   Page 2 of 3
 CM No.6184/2011(u/O.41 R.5 CPC)

            Since the main appeal has been disposed of no further orders are

required to be passed in this application and therefore the application is also

disposed of.



March 25, 2011                                  VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ak