VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

CAVEAT No. 9/2018

Since counsel for the caveator has entered appearance, the caveat stands discharged.

RFA No. 21/2018 and I.A. No. 694/2018 (for stay)

1. As Court of law, considering the society that we live in today, there are a flood of cases where each case seeks to out do the other case so far as dishonesty is concerned. Dishonest litigants have no qualms in going to the extremes of dishonesty not only to prejudice the opposite side in litigation but also put the system of litigation itself to question only because procedural matters and the system of adjudication on account of pendency of heavy backlog is taking considerable time of Courts. The present is a fit case on account of complete and outright dishonesty of the appellant who is a tenant refusing to vacate the tenant premises as also raising completely unfounded defences, along with dismissal of the appeal it will also be required that this Court not only gives directions for filing of an FIR against the appellant under Section 209 IPC for filing a false claim in Court, but also this court initiate Contempt of Court proceedings because of the outright dishonest and false claim/defence set up by the appellant. With these preliminary statements let us turn to the facts of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

2. This RFA is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 25.9.2017 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs/landlord under Order XII Rule 6 CPC so far as the grant of relief of possession of the suit premises is concerned. The suit premises is the property situated on a plot bearing No. 53, Block-B, Pocket-10, Sector-13, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.

3. The facts of the case are that a registered lease deed dated 14.7.2014 was entered into between the respondents/plaintiffs/landlord with the appellant/defendant/tenant. As per this registered lease deed, duly registered with the office of Sub-Registrar, Janakpuri, New Dehi, the monthly rent was Rs.1,12,000/- for the suit premises from 15.7.2014 till 14.6.2015, Rs.1,34,000/- per month from 15.6.2015 till 14.5.2016 and Rs.1,50,000/- per month from 15.5.2016 till 14.7.2017. Appellant/defendant was also liable to pay a fixed amount of Rs.1,000/- per month as water charges.

4. In terms of Clauses 3, 23, 31 and 35 of the registered lease deed dated 14.7.2014, either of the parties to the same could terminate the tenancy by giving a three months notice in writing without assigning any reason.

5. Appellant/defendant was habitual in defaulting in the payment of rent. The subject suit was filed on 2.2.2016 because as on this date a sum of Rs.4,99,800/- was due. It is also required to be noted by this Court that from 2.2.2016 till date in January 2018, not a single rupee has been paid by the appellant/defendant towards arrears of rent except it is stated that for a period of four months rent at Rs. 82,000/- has been paid as stated by the appellant/defendant and which period of payment is stated to be of three months by the respondents/plaintiffs/landlord. It is also stated on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs/ landlord that in fact even for this period of 3/4 months the admitted rate of rent has not been paid but only an amount of Rs.82,000/-per month was paid.

6. Since the appellant/defendant failed to regularly pay the rent, hence the respondents/ plaintiffs/landlord was not interested in continuing with the tenancy and therefore the tenancy was terminated by serving a legal notice dated 5.10.2015 giving the notice of three months time as required under Clauses 3, 23, 31 and 35 of the registered lease deed dated 14.7.2014.

7. Appellant/defendant appeared in the suit and filed his written statement. The case set up by the appellant/defendant was that the registered lease deed dated 14.7.2014 entered into by him was signed by him without going through the same on account o