SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
VALMIKI J.MEHTA
Satish Kumar Sushil – Appellant
Versus
Bal Govind Rohtgi – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (ORAL)

1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 14.10.2011 decreeing the suit of the respondent/landlord/plaintiff for possession on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

2. In Delhi, where the tenancies have rent in excess of Rs.3,500/- per month and such tenancies are not tenancies for fixed period under a registered lease, i.e. they are monthly tenancies, then such tenancies can be terminated by means of service of legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

3. Before me, learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the rate of rent is Rs.4,000/- per month.

4. So far as the issue of termination of tenancy is concerned, I have held in the judgment reported as M/s.Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. vs. M/s. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) & Anr. 2011 (183) DLT 712 that even if it is not proved that a legal notice was served prior to filing of the suit, service of summons of the suit can be taken as a no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top