The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing the landlord-tenant relationship, termination of tenancy, and non-payment of rent in ejectment cases, while also highlighting the need for substantiating oral agreements with evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

CM APPL. 21003/2020 (exemption)

Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CM(M) 433/2020 & CM APPL 21002/2020 (stay)

1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

2. Petitioner seeks setting aside of orders dated 29.09.2018, 11.01.2019, 03.04.2019, 03.07.2019, 21.08.2019, 23.10.2019, 24.02.2020 and 02.03.2020. Petitioner primarily impugns order dated 02.03.2020, whereby Decree of ejectment order 12 Rule 6 CPC has been passed.

3. Subject Suit was filed by the respondent for ejectment, recovery of possession and arrears of rent.

4. It is contended by the respondent in the plaint that respondent is the owner of first and second floor of property bearing No. 6338, Block No. 7, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

5. It is contended that the respondent is completely handicapped, bed ridden and residing at the first floor of the property along with his old mother, who is aged 84 years and suffering from various ailments.

6. It is further contended in the plaint that on the request of the defendant (petitioner herein), the second floor of the subject premises was let out to the petitioner in January, 2012 on a monthly rental of Rs. 5,000/-.

7. It is stated that even though petitioner started to reside in the property, he did not come forward to execute the rent agreement in respect of the property on the ground that he required the tenanted premises for a short period as renovation was going on in his house.

8. It is contended that after taking the tenanted premises on rent, petitioner used to make payments of monthly rent from time to time, however, failed to vacate the premises after a period of 11 months and continued to remain in possession.

9. It is contended in the plaint that the rent was subsequently increased to Rs. 7,000/- in the year 2014. Petitioner is alleged to have defaulted in payment of rents and subsequently, on the request of the respondent, increased the monthly rent from Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month with effect from March 2017.

10. It is averred that after January, 2018, petitioner failed to pay the rent and when the sister of the respondent requested him to make the payment, he flatly refused to pay any rent and did not pay any rent after January, 2018.

11. It is contended that respondent is handicapped and the mother of the respondent is an old lady suffering from various ailments and they have no source of income except the rental from the subject premises.

12. It is contended that there is no written agreement executed between the parties with regard to the tenancy of the subject premises. It is in these circumstances that the legal notice dated 12.06.2018 was served upon the petitioner asking him to vacate the property and since he failed to vacate the same, subject Suit was filed.

13. The only argument addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Suit has been filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge (Central District.) but in the copy of the plaint supplied to him there is a correction done and the Plaint states "In the Court of Senior Civil Judge (Central District.). He submits that the word "West" has been changed by hand to read "Central" District.

14. Apart from the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out that there is any discrepancy in the body of the plaint.

15. It is apparent that initially the plaint was drafted to be filed in the Court of West District but at the time of filing, the same seems to have been corrected and the word 'West' has been substituted by hand by the word 'Central' and that the Suit has been filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge (Central District.) and the plaint was placed before the Court of Senior Civil Judge (Central District.) and all orders have been passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge (Central District.).

16. Merely because the heading of the plaint mentions 'West District.' would not mean that the court did not have jurisdiction, when admittedly the