Om Prakash vs . Smt. Panchi Devi on 3 January, 2012
2.3 The premises was let out without any written agreement but
subsequently, respondent's grandson Virender Singh got signed some
papers around December 2009 and again in February 2010; the copies
given to the appellant are different from the copies placed on record by the
respondent in the judicial file of Trial Court. Both the agreements are
contradictory. The respondent had pleaded that the premises was required
for bonafide need, however, the decree of possession was passed without
recording any evidence or without establishing the fact of bonafide
requirement, which have been protested not only in the written statement
but also in the reply to notice. In order to give judgment on admissions, the
same should be absolute admissions, clear admissions, whereas there is
no such clear admissions by the appellant / defendant and judgment could
not have been directed on admission of technical grounds of jurisdiction
lying with the Civil Court. It is a preliminary decree, as the Court in itself
recorded in the decree dated 10.10.2011, as if, suit came for final disposal,
whereas the suit is still pending. The respondent has been violent for
RCA No. 28/2011 Page 4 of 11
Om Prakash vs. Smt. Panchi Devi
securing the possession of appeal property and suit has also been filed
under such persuasions whereas it was appellant, who had filed a civil suit
against the respondent, wherein respondent had given an undertaking that
the appellant would not be dispossessed without due process of law.
2.4 During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for appellant
argued on the lines of his case, compiled in paragraph 2.3, above. It is
reiterated that triable issues are yet to be decided and impugned decree is
liable to be set aside.