Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral)

1. The challenge by means of this regular second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC is to the impugned judgment of the appellate court dated 10.5.2013 which has dismissed the appeal, filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant. The first appeal was against the judgment of the trial court dated 4.2.2013 by which the suit for possession and mesne profits of the respondent-plaintiff was decreed to the extent of possession by allowing the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

2. In Delhi, in order to maintain a suit in civil court for possession, the following three requirements have to exist: (i) there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; (ii) the premises are not governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and (iii) contractual monthly tenancy is terminated by sending a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

3. In the present case, the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted. Though service of the legal notice is disputed, the issue is no longer res integra that the service of summons in the suit can always be treated as a notice terminating tenancy under Section 106 vide the judgment of this