Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.:--

The appeal impugns the judgment and decree (dated 27th September, 2012 of the Court of Addl. District Judge Central-09, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS No. 150/2011 filed by respondent No. 1) on admissions of ejectment of the appellant and the respondent No. 2 Syndicate Bank, after determination of tenancy, from the premises earlier in the tenancy of the appellant.

2. Notice of the appeal and of the application for stay was issued. On the next date it was stated that the respondent No. 2 Syndicate Bank is a proforma party; accordingly service of the respondent No. 2 Syndicate Bank was dispensed with. The counsel for the respondent No. 1 on 6th March, 2013 also informed that possession of the property had already been taken by the respondent No. 1 by collecting the keys of the premises from the Court where they were deposited by the respondent No. 2 Syndicate Bank. The said position was confirmed by the counsel for the appellant and as such the application for stay of execution was dismissed as infructuous and the Trial Court record requisitioned and the appeal listed for final hearing. The counsel for the appellant thereafter kept on taking adjournments and has today argued only upon it being made clear on the last date that no further adjournment will be given.

3. The suit from which this appeal arises, was instituted by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff as far back as on 11th April, 1989, pleading:-

(a) that the subject premises in the commercial heart of city of Delhi i.e. at Connaught Place were let out to the appellant/defendant No. 1 at a rent of Rs. 900/- per month w.e.f. 1st June, 1977 vide registered Lease Deed dated 5th January, 1978 for a period of ten years;

(b) that though the term of the Lease Deed expired on 31st May, 1987, the appellant/defendant No. 1 continued to hold the premises as a monthly tenant;

(c) that the appellant/defendant No. 1 had sub let the premises to the defendants No. 2 to 5 with each of them paying rent in excess of Rs. 3,500/- per month to the appellant/defendant No. 1; that the tenancy was thus outside the ambit of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958; and,

(d) that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff had vide notice dated 29th December, 1988 determined the tenancy of the appellant/defendant No. 1 w.e.f. 31st January, 1989.

4. It appears that the other defendants in the suit were given up and the suit proceeded against the appellant/defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 Syndicate Bank only; the said Bank also vacated the premises and deposited the keys in the Court.

5. The appellant/defendant No. 1 claimed that its eviction from the premises was protected by the Rent Act, the rent payable by it to the respondent No. 1/plaintiff being less than Rs. 3,500/- per month. The said aspect was decided against the appellant/defendant No. 1 till the Supreme Court.

6. The learned Addl. District Judge has vide the impugned judgment on admissions, ordered ejectment of the appellant/defendant No. 1, holding that there was no dispute of the relationship of landlord and tenant or qua the registered Lease Deed the term whereof had expired and/or qua the tenancy having been terminated.

7. The counsel for the appellant/defendant No. 1 has at the outset referred to M/s. Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. Vs. M/s. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) AIR 2010 SC 1890 whereby the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of this Court affirming the judgment of the Trial Court, also of ejectment on admissions and remanded suit for trial and has contended that the facts of the present case are similar.

8. However the precedents are on questions of law and not of facts. It has thus been enquired from the counsel for the appellant/defendant No. 1 as to what is the plea in the written statement of the appellant/defendant No. 1 which is required to be put to trial. Attention of the counsel has been invited to Order XIV and Order XV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is not as if the CPC requires all suits to be decided only a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document