Valmiki J. Mehta, J (Oral)

1. No one was present on behalf of the respondent on the first call. No one is present for the respondent even on the second call. Respondent was not even present on earlier dates of hearings being 24.9.2013, 27.9.2013, 7.11.2013, 5.12.2013, 11.12.2013 and 17.12.2013. I have therefore perused the record and am disposing of this appeal.

2. The challenge by means of this appeal is to the impugned judgment of the appellate court dated 24.9.2012 by which the appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 25.8.2011. The trial court by the judgment dated 25.8.2011 decreed the suit of the appellant/landlord under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for possession against the respondent-tenant. The relevant observations of the trial court for decreeing the suit are contained in paras 5 to 9 of the judgment and which read as under:-

“5. The law is well settled in regard to the passing of the decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to prove the three ingredients required for ejectment namely:

a) relationship of landlord and tenant,

b) rate of rent of above Rs. 3500/

c) service of notice of the termination of tenancy under