Delhi High Court
Hari Shankar Gupta vs Anu Gandhi @ Saurabh on 22 December, 2014
Author: Sunil Gaur
Bench: Sunil Gaur
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: December 22, 2014
+ RSA 398/2014
HARI SHANKAR GUPTA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. H.S. Dhawan, Advocate
versus
ANU GANDHI @ SAURABH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL) CAV No.1135/2014 & 1136/2014 The caveats stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.M.APPL.21118/2014 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
RSA 398/2014 & C.M.APPLN.21117/2014 (Stay) Respondent-plaintiff is the landlord of the suit premises and the suit for possession, mandatory injunction, etc., has been dismissed by the trial court while raising the bar of Section 50 of The Delhi Rent Control Act. The First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment has allowed respondent' suit by holding that the bar of Section 50 of The Delhi Rent Control Act is inapplicable as the admitted rent for the tenanted portion was `4200/- per month.
RSA 398/2014 Page 1 The facts of this case already stand noticed in the impugned judgment and need no reproduction.
At the hearing of this second appeal, it was submitted that there is no evidence to substantiate the assertion of the respondent-plaintiff that the rent of the tenanted portion was `4200/- per month and the cross- examination of appellant has been misread by the First Appellate Court as in terms of the lease-deed of 29th September, 2001, the initial monthly rent was `1500/- per month only.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for respondent had drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph No.24 of the impugned judgment wherein the relevant portion of the deposition of appellant has been extracted.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned judgment, trial court judgment and the material on record, I find that appellant has categorically stated in his deposition as under: -
"I do not remember whether I paid rent of two months to the plaintiff immediately after the death of late Sh. Sham Sunder on 05.07.2007. Vol. However, I have paid the rent to the plaintiff after the death of late Sh. Sham Sunder.
I have not been given rent receipt for the payment of Rs.8400/- against two months rent to the plaintiff after the death of late Sh. Sham Sunder on 05.07.2007."
The afore-noted implied admission clearly indicates that the rent of the suit premises was `4200/- per month and the said admission made by appellant has not been explained by appellant in his deposition or even at RSA 398/2014 Page 2 the time of hearing before this Court.
In view of aforesaid, this Court finds that the impugned judgment is not perverse and no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal.
The appeal and the applications are accordingly dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 22, 2014
s
RSA 398/2014 Page 3