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 before the trial Court in spite of opportunities, and consequently, the right of the appellant/defendant to lead evidence was closed by the trial Court.

4. The facts of the case are that the appellant/defendant was a tenant in the suit premises. It was inducted as a lessee under a lease deed dated 27.4.1979. The suit premises were vacated by the appellant/defendant on 3.8.2003 pursuant to a decree for possession passed by the Civil Court on 7.1.2002. Since the appellant/defendant during the period of its stay failed to pay the general maintenance and water charges to the maintenance society where the flats were situated, the respondent/plaintiff was forced to pay the said amount and thereafter she filed the subject suit for recovery of Rs. 6,79,584/- alongwith interest.

5. Before the trial Court, it stands established in terms of the lease deed that the liability to pay the maintenance and water charges with respect to the tenanted flats, to the maintenance society of the multistorey building, was of the appellant/tenant/defendant. The lease agreement was proved and exhibited in the trial Court as Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/D. Trial Court has arrived at a finding that the appellant/defendant had made a wrong representation that all the bills towards the electricity, water etc for the tenanted premises for the period of occupation have been paid, however, it subsequently transpired that the amounts towards maintenance charges and water charges were not paid to the maintenance society, M/s R.C.Sood & Company. An amount of Rs.3,92,431/- was due towards the general maintenance charges up to 3.8.2003 and towards water charges a sum of Rs.38,938 was due. The receipts of payment were exhibited as Ex.PW1/Q and Ex.PW1/R to Ex.PW1/T. The statement of account of the maintenance society with respect to dues was also exhibited as Ex.PW1/K to Ex.PW1/M. The respondent/plaintiff served a legal notice dated 14.5.2008 exhibited as Ex.PW1/V upon the appellant, receipt of which was not disputed and all that was pleaded in the reply was that the notice was baseless. Such a stand is of no effect because payments have to be shown to have been made towards the maintenance charges and water dues (the liability being of the appellant/tenant), and which however was not done. As already stated above, there was no evidence led by the appellant/defendant and therefore, trial Court has decreed the suit.

6. The relevant observations in this regard made by the trial Court to hold the appellant liable read as under:-

“24. The short question for consideration is whether in these circumstances the defendant is bound to re-imburse the plaintiff for the maintenance charges and interest payable and paid for the period of defendant’s enjoyment of the property. The claim of the plaintiff is based upo