The importance of properly pleading objections and defenses in accordance with procedural rules, and the sufficiency of admissions in a written statement for a decree on possession.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

CM No.21398/2014

For the reasons stated in the application 30 days delay in filing the appeal is condoned. RFA(OS) 163/2014

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record of the suit.

2. At the outset we note that the pleading in para 6 of the appeal that on September 29, 2014 the appellant had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 to amend the plaint is not borne out from the record of the suit. No such application is to be found in the suit record. Learned counsel for the appellant has been told to identify the application in the suit record if at all any was filed. Counsel does not even make an attempt to identify the application. The reason is obvious. None exists.

3. That apart, the copy of the application seeking amendment of the written statement filed by the appellant which has been filed along with the appeal shows that it was sent to learned counsel for the plaintiff on September 30, 2014. We say so for the reason the photocopy of the postal receipt on the index of the application bears the date September 30, 2014. Thus, the application could not be even otherwise before the learned Single Judge when the impugned order was passed on October 30, 2014 allowing IA No.14691/2014 filed by the respondents and passing a decree for possession against the appellant on October 30, 2014. The impugned order does not record that counsel for the appellant made a request for hearing to be deferred stating that the appellant, impleaded as defendant No.1 in the suit, wanted to amend the written statement.

4. That apart, from the facts which we would be noting hereinafter assuming such an application was filed, it would have made no difference.

5. Raj Rani Garg and Jeevan Lata Garg, the respondents No.1 and 2 in the appeal filed a suit for possession, arrears of rent, damages and for permanent injunction, impleading the appellant as defendant No.1 as well as Chanchal Chopra and Pulkit Chopra who were impleaded as defendants No.2 and 3. It was pleaded by Raj Rani and Jeevan Lata that they were the owners of shop No.G-1, constructed on plots No.F-1, F-2, and F-3, District Centre, Wazirpur and under a registered lease-deed dated December 27, 2010 had let-out the same to defendant No.1 and late Charanji Lal Chopra, the predecessor-in-interest of defendant No.3. The two commenced business from the tenanted premises. It was pleaded that possession of the tenanted premises was taken over by defendant No.1 and late Sh.Charanji Lal Chopra on February 01, 2011 and that rent commenced from said date.

As per the registered lease-deed the monthly rent was Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) for a period of one year and thereafter had to be increased to Rs.1,57,500/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) for the second year Rs.1,65,375/-(Rupees One Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Five only) for the third year, Rs.1,73,644/-(Rupees One Lakh Seventy Three Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four only) for the fourth year and Rs.1,82,326/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty Two Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Six only) for the fifth year. It was pleaded that the term of the lease was five years. It was pleaded that since January 2013 no rent was paid and arrears had accumulated till when the suit was filed in sum of Rs.16,45,575/-(Rupees Sixteen Lacs Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Five only). It was pleaded that as per the registered lease-deed the defendants were to pay the maintenance charges to the maintenance society which had accumulated in sum of Rs.38,00,000/-( Rupees Thirty Eight Lacs only). It was pleaded that electricity dues payable had accumulated in sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lacs only). It was pleaded that vide legal notice dated July 29, 2013 the tenancy was determined. It was pleaded that the legal notice was replied to by the counsel of the defendants on August 19, 2013 on the instruction of defendant No.3 in which every paragraph of the