r •9 Ik 41 % 07.02.2011 Present: Mr. R.B. Singh, Adv. for the petitioner. + C.M.2512/2011 * Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. r.M. fM^ No. 127/2011 & CM No.2513/2011 (stay) This petitionhas been filed by the petitionerunderArticle227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the Impugned order dated 20.11.2010 passed by learned trial Court, Delhi. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The relevant portionofthe impugnedorder reads as under:- " The defendant In the plaint In suit No. 180/09 has clearlyadmitted Ms. Nirmal Kaurto be his landlordin para No.2. Further the defendanthas also admitted the rent agreement dated 26.10.1999 between the husband of the plaintiff and the defendant. As per the terms of the agreement, the husband of the plaintiffhad agreed to let out one drawing room, two bed rooms attached toilet, kitchen including fixture and fittings,of the second floor of house No. B-1/290 Janakpuri, New Delhi. It was 11 months lease at monthly rent of Rs. 6000/- per month exclusive of electricityand water charges. It is an admitted case of the parties,that on the date offiling of the suit a rent at Rs. 7000/- p.m. was being paid by the defendant. However, the defendant has claimed that this Rs. 7000/- was inclusive of water and electricity charges. The legal notice dated 22.02.2008 have been duly served upon the defendant and the defendant has even replied to the notice in which he has denied the rent at Rs. 7000/- and he alleges that more space than as alleged by the plaintiffwas given Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified on rent to him. He further submits that the said notice has not (sic) force and is illegal. 10. Both the parties have admitted the following facts:- The tenancy Rent Agreement dated 26.10.1999 Legal Notice dated 22.02.2008 11. Admittedly the defendant was the tenant of husband of the plaintiff by rent agreement dated 26.10.1999 for a period of 11 months. The said agreement is on record and admitted by both the parties, and no fresh agreement has been placed on record." I have gone through the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. I do not find any infirmity In the order passed by learned trial Court. Dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial Court for compliance. S.L. BHAYANA, J. FEBRUARY 07, 2011 Kb