H L Kohli vs Rakesh Basra
2014 Latest Caselaw 7012 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   Date of Decision: December 19, 2014

+     RSA 393/2014 & C.M.No.20896/2014
      H L KOHLI                                          ..... Appellant
                          Through:      Mr. M.K. Singh & Mr. K.G.Vibhu,
                                        Advocates

                          versus

      RAKESH BASRA                                       ..... Respondent
                          Through:      Nemo.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

The concurrent finding returned by both the courts below is that respondent-plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit premises and to arrears of rent, damages etc. The factual narration finds mention in the opening paragraphs of the impugned judgment and needs no reiteration.

Suffice it would be note that w.e.f. 1st July, 2011, the rent of the suit property was enhanced to `3,515/- per month, which was inclusive of electricity and water charges. The findings returned by both the courts below are not required to be adverted to for the reason that at the outset, learned counsel for appellant had brought to the notice of this Court that this appeal is confined to the arrears of rent, mesne profits, damages etc., as the possession of the suit property has been already handed over to respondent- plaintiff.

RSA No.393/2014 Page 1 At the hearing, learned counsel for appellant contended that respondent had accepted the enhancement and thereby is not entitled to the arrears of rent, as determined by the courts below.

Attention of this Court was drawn to the cheques (Ex. DW-1/1) but in the cross-examination, respondent has not been confronted with these cheques and in the deposition of appellant, it is nowhere stated that respondent had signed the cheques for the enhanced amount in token of receiving them.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the judgment of the courts below and the material on record, I find that after increase in the rate of rent, the tenancy became month to month, which was terminated vide Notice of 23rd July, 2011(EX. PW1/E) w.e.f. 1st September, 2011. The finding returned against the appellant is that appellant is in arrears of rent from 1st July, 2011 till 31st August, 2011 and the market rent of the suit premises is `10,000/- per month.

In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no perversity in the concurrent findings returned against the appellant. No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal.

In view of aforesaid, this appeal and application are dismissed with no order as to cost.

                                                          (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                            JUDGE
DECEMBER 19, 2014
r




RSA No.393/2014                                                         Page 2