9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RFA No. 505/2014, whereby the High Court disposed of the appeal observing that the Appellant having not pressed the appeal and by changing their counsel cannot be allowed to plead for adjournment to argue the appeal. Review Petition No. 499/2014 also came to be dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 19.11.2014 which is also under challenge in these appeals. 3. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as under: Respondent-landlord is the owner of the disputed premises which is a built up area of entire second floor with terrace/roof of the property bearing No. R-849 situated at New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi admeasuring 200 sq. yards. The Appellant-tenant contended that the Respondent-landlord entered into a registered agre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi. During the pendency of the suit, an application Under Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the Respondent-landlord and the trial court vide its order dated 25.08.2014 allowed the said application and directed the Appellant-tenant to vacate and handover physical possession of the suit premises to the Respondent-landlord. 5. Aggrieved by the Order, the Appellant-tenant preferred RFA No. 505/2014 in the High Court of Delhi. As per the order of the High Court, on the date of preliminary hearing i.e. 16.10.2014, the learned Counsel for the Appellant-tenant is said to have submitted that the "appeal is not pressed on merits and he prays for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nant, the trial court ought to have adjudicated the matter and erred in passing a decree for eviction without trial. It was also submitted that when the matter came up before the High Court of Delhi on 16.10.2014, the Appellant-tenant was not present in the Court and his counsel sought time to take instructions and according to the Appellant-tenant, his counsel did not make the statement 'not pressing the appeal'. It is contended that even assuming that the counsel for the Appellant-tenant has made such a statement, the learned Single Judge can certainly permit a party to resile from the concession. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent-landlord submitted that it is clear from the order that the advocate appearing for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e agreement; but resisted Respondent-Plaintiffs claim by setting up a defence plea of agreement to sale and that he paid an advance of Rs. 82.50 lakhs, which of course is stoutly denied by the Respondent-landlord. The Appellant-Defendant also filed the Suit for Specific Performance, which of course is contested by the Respondent-landlord. When such issues arising between the parties ought to be decided, mere admission of relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be said to be an unequivocal admission to decree the suit Under Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure. 10. Having regard to the stand taken by the parties, in our view, an opportunity has to be afforded to the Appellant to put forth his defence and contest the suit and therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
