* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 70/2010 Date of Decision: April 13, 2010 SHABNAM & ANR. Appellants Through: Mr. Firoz Alam, Adv. versus SHAKUNTALA SHARMA Respondent Through: Nemo. % CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH (1) Whether reporters of local paper 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 ? JUDGMENT ARUNA SURESH. J. (OraH 1. Impugned in this appeal is the judgment and decree of the First AppellateCourt dated20.02.2010,whereby appeal of the appellants filed against judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 3.08.2009 was dismissed. 2. Concisely,case of RespondentShalcuntlaSharmawas that she had purchased suit.propert>' bearing No.T-807, Flat No.8, RSA No. 70/2010 Page 1 of 5 \ Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified 2- First Floor, Sukhdev Market, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi vide registered Sale Deed. On 13.11.2008 appellant No.l Ms. Shabnam took the suit premises on rent for a period of 15 days as she needed the sanie for a short period. Rent was fixed at Rs. 12,000/- for 15 days along with security amount of Rs. 12,000/-. No written agreement was executed. On 20.11.2008 appellant brought her bag and baggage to the suit premises but Respondent did not allow her to enter the premises. The matter was reported to the police and therefore, at the instance of police and property dealers, she being an unmarried young girl was allowed to stay in the suit property for a night. However, on 21.11.2008 she called her family members and illegally and forcibly made her entry in the suit premises. She refusedto vacate the premises despite service of legalnotice. Hence,Respondentfiled a suit for possession, mesne profits as well as for permanent injunction against the appellant. 3. Mr. Firoz Alam, learned counsel for appellant No.l has argued that there was an oral agreementbetween the parties on 13.11.2008 whereby the suit premises were let out to RSA No. 70/2010 Page 2 of 5 3> V appellant No.l for a period of 15 days on a rent of Rs.12,000/- whereas Respondent filed the suit without termination of the tenancy. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Couit therefore went wrong in decreeing the suit of the Respondent. 4. Appellants were duly served with summons but none appeared on their behalf despite the fact that the Trial Court granted two opportimities awaiting the written statements of the appellants. Finally, they were proceeded ex-parte on 4.5.2009. The decree, therefore, passed against the appellants is an ex-parte decree. No application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed by the appellant No.1 seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree. However, Regular Appeal was filed which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.02.2010. 5. AppellateCourtobservedthatan opportunitywas givento the appellantto substantiateher claim that she was inductedas a tenantin the suitpremisesfor 15 days on a rent of Rs.12,000/- but, she failed to produce any document to substantiate her claim. Considering the submissions made by appellant No.l only as avermentswith no legs to stand upon, the Appellate RSA No. 70/2010 Page 3 of 5 L Court found itself agreeing with the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the case of appellant No.1 herself, she was inducted as a tenant on 13.11.2008 for a period of 15 days on rent of Rs.12,000/-. The period of 15 days expired on 28.11.2008. Therefore, I tenancy of the appellant No.1 stood terminated by afflux of time. It is not in dispute that Respondent had served a legal notice upon appellantNo.1 to vacate the premises. Appellant No.1 has succeeded in retaining the possession of the demised premiseswith her for a period of about IY2 years after expiry ofher lease period. Under these circumstances,no substantial questionof lawneedsformulationas nonearises. 7. It is well settledprincipleof law that jurisdiction of the High Court in the Second Appeal has been limited by effecting amendment in Section 100 CPC and its jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal is now only confined to cases which involve substantialquestion of law, specifically set out in memo of appealand formulatedby the High Court. RSA No. 70/2010 Page 4 of 5 s 8. As pointedout above, no substantialquestionoflaw arisesin this appeal.Hence,the appealis herebydismissed. CMAPPLNo.6576/2010(u/s.149 CPC) Appellantsare directedto pay the deficientcourt fee within one week from today, failingwhich the same shall be recoveredby the Stateas Staterevenuemaccordancewithlaw. Applicationstands disposed of CM APPLNos.6574-75/2010also standdisposedof APRIL 13,2010 vk ARUNA SURESH, J. RSANo. 70/2010 Page5of5