VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

1. This appeal was argued in detail by the earlier counsel Mr. Suresh Sharma, Advocate on 14.5.2012. At the stage of passing of the judgment for dismissing of the appeal, the earlier counsel took adjournment to take instructions if the decretal amount can be paid with a slightly lesser rate of interest. Today, however, new counsel appears and, wants to again argue the matter. In my opinion, this is an unacceptable practice. I cannot allow appeals to be argued afresh on each hearing merely because a new counsel appears and seeks to re-argue the matter.

2. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 31.1.2012 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff/landlord for dues towards the maintenance charges which were not paid by the appellant/defendant/tenant with respect to the tenanted-suit premises being flat nos. 404 & 405 admeasuring 1475 sq. ft and 1207 sq. ft. respectively in Rattan Jyoti Building, Rajendra Place, New Delhi.

3. Before adverting to the facts on merits, I must state that the appellant/defendant led no evidence befo