* m THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 161/2009 & CM Nos.18488-89/2009 Date of Decision: Decennber 18, 2009 SMT. HARjVilNDERKAUR Appellant Through: Mr. Vikas Manchanda, Advocate versus SMT. KULJIT KAUR 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. I. (Oral) 1. Appellant (defendant in the suit) was inducted as a tenant by the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) in property No.A-43, First Floor, Gangotri Apartment, Vikaspuri, New Delhi in the year 2003 vide Rent Agreement dated 21.05.2003. The tenancy was RSA 161/2009 Page 1 of 6 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified extended for 22 months vide Lease Agreement dated 13.05.2005 and for another 21 months vide duly registered Lease Agreement dated 29.03.2007. Though tenancy of the appellant was to expire on 31.12.2008, a notice dated 22.12.2008 was served by the respondent upon the appellant asking her to hand over the possession of the demised premises on expiry of the lease period. Tenancy of the appellant expired on 31.12.2008 by afflux of time. Since, appellant failed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises, respondent filed a suit for possession and recovery of damages/mesne profits against the appellant. 2. Respondent moved an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC seeking decree for possession on admissions made by the appellant in her written statement. The said application was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 13.08.2009 and a decree for possession was accordingly passed against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order and RSA 161/2009 P^9e 2 of 6 ^ I I decree of the trial court, the appellant filed Regular Civil Appeal before the appellate Court. The said appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 26.10.2009. Being aggrieved by the said orders of the courts below, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. Mr. Vikas Manchanda, learned counsel for the appellant has subnnitted that the tenancy was extended by way of an oral agreement inter se the parties in December, 2008 when respondent accepted rent for three months i.e. for the months of December, 2008 to February, 2009. The trial court failed to appreciate that the tenancy of the appellant was orally extended and, therefore, no decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC could have been passed against the appellant without affording opportunity to lead evidence to prove that there was an oral agreement for extension of tenancy. He has submitted that substantial question of law needs formulation in this appeal. RSA 161/2009 Page 3 of 6 3 r A. It Is an admitted fact that appellant was inducted as a tenant in the year 2003 and the terms and I conditions of the tenancy were duly incorporated in a written Lease Agreement. Thereafter, the tenancy was extended on 13.05.2003 for a period of 22 months by way of a registered Lease Agreement and lastly, it was extended on 29.3.2007 upto 31.12.2008 on a monthly rent of Rs.9,500/-. In December, 2008, respondent sent a notice to remind the appellant that her tenancy was to expire on 31.12.2008 and also called upon her to handover vacant possession of the suit premises on expiry of lease period. Instead of handing over the vacant possession of the premises, appellant filed a suit against the respondent in which respondent and her husband made a statement that they would not dispossess the appellant from the suit property without due course of law and the copy of the notice dated 22.12.2008 was also handed over to the appellant's counsel in the said case in the presence of the Court itself. RSA 161/2009 Page 4 of 6 H 5. Respondent had recourse of law and she filed a suit for possession and mesne profits. Admittedly, no fresh rent agreement was executed inter se the parties and under the circumstances, there could not have been any. Admittedly, appellant did not pay any rent after February, 2009. The rent allegedly paid for the month of January and February, 2009, as per the case of the appellant herself, was paid along with rent for the month of December, 2008. The suit for mesne profits is still pending adjudication and it is for the trial court to decide if there was any advance rent paid by the appellant upto February, 2009 as claimed. The fact remains, the notice dated 22.12.2008 was not replied by the appellant nor its legality or validity is under challenge. 6. The tenancy of the appellant expired by afflux of time. The Courts below rightly allowed the application filed under order 12 Rule 6 GPC on consideration of unambiguous and unconditional admission of the appellant , made in the written RSA 161/2009 5 of 6 5 r statement and passed a decree for possession in respect of the demised premises in favour of the respondent. 7. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which needs formulation and adjudication. Hence, appeal being without any merits is hereby dismissed. DECEMBER 18, 2009 vk (ARUNA SURESH) JUDGE RSA 161/2009 Page 6 of 6