RFA No.180/2011 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA No.180/2011 % 25th March, 2011 M/S. BATA INDIA LTD. ...... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raman Kapur & Mr. Dhiraj Sachdeva, Advocates VERSUS M/S. ATMA RAM BUILDERS (P) LTD. ...... Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Sethi, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) Caveat No.262/2011 in RFA No.180/2011 Counsel for the caveator appears. Caveat stands discharged. RFA No.180/2011 The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 15th January, 2011 whereby the suit of the respondent/plaintiff/landlord for possession has been decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The contention which was raised before the Trial Court and which is also being raised before me by the appellant/tenant is that the RFA No.180/2011 Page 2 of 3 mezzanine floor of which the rent is above Rs.3,500/- per month (and therefore does not fall under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) has no independent entrance and therefore the parties agreed that both the floors i.e. of the ground floor and mezzanine floor either stay together and go together. This is disputed by learned counsel for the appellant who, states that both the tenancies were to operate independently and that there could be a decree for possession with respect to mezzanine floor only for which respondent could have made a separate provision, inter alia, for ingress and egress of the property. Thus there is a disputed question of fact which requires trial as to whether the tenancy of the mezzanine floor will or will not operate independently of the ground floor portion. I make no observation in one way or the other as it is the prerogative of the Trial Court which will decide the case finally as to whether the respondent is right or whether the appellant is right. Counsel for the parties, however, agree that the case can be disposed of expeditiously, not later than 6 months from the date on which the Trial Court receives the copy of this order. Counsel for the parties also agree that none of them will take unnecessary adjournments before the Court below and the Trial Court will impose the heavy costs with respect to any unnecessary adjournment which shall be asked by either side. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of by consent that the impugned judgment is set aside, however, all questions of law and fact are left open for being decided at the stage of final arguments in the suit. The Trial Court shall make every endeavour to complete the trial and the decision in the case within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. RFA No.180/2011 Page 3 of 3 CM No.6184/2011(u/O.41 R.5 CPC) Since the main appeal has been disposed of no further orders are required to be passed in this application and therefore the application is also disposed of. March 25, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ak