Abhishek Sharma vs Nitesh Kanoria & Ors on 29 June, 2018
Upon perusal of the plaint, it is evident that the averment as
to the defendant/petitioner making payment of rent in respect of
his tenancy, was confined to the period till the month of
December, 2011. In fact, it was categorically averred by the
plaintiffs/opposite parties that thereafter the defendant/petitioner
neglected and failed to pay rent in respect of his tenancy. Such
averment, if taken in proper context, would show that the last
payment made by the petitioner, even as per the plaint averment,
preceded the induction of the plaintiffs/opposite parties as lessees,
the latter event having taken place on April 19, 2012. As such, the
facts of the present case differ on a fundamental pivot from the
cited judgment in Smt. Sabita Sharma vs. Smt. Seema Kanoria and
others. In the present case, the statement in paragraph 4 of the
plaint rather endorses the fact that the defendant/petitioner had
been a tenant in respect of the suit premises when the
plaintiffs/opposite parties were inducted, thereby obviously
indicating creation of a concurrent lease in favour of the opposite
parties.