MAHENDER KUMAR GARG Vs. HARISH NAGPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE first appeals are filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) read with Section 104 CPC, 1908 impugning the order of the first appellate court dated 9.1.2013. The first appellate court has dismissed the application filed by the appellant/defendant/tenant under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for restoration of the first appeals which were dismissed in default vide order dated 26.3.2011.

(2.) I may note that ordinarily courts are lenient, and even this Court would have been lenient in hearing granting of the first appeal on merits before the first appellate court, but, the facts of the present cases persuade me not to allow these appeals inasmuch as appeals are by a recalcitrant tenant who has no protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 but obdurately continues to illegally stay in the suit premises belonging to the respondent/landlord being property no. B -529, Sudershan Park, New Delhi situated on 45 square yards plot.

(3.) THE trial court held that the rate of rent of the suit premises was not Rs. 800/ - as contended by the appellant/tenant, but was Rs. 5000/ - as was the case of the respondent/landlord and hence the appellant had no protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act once the rent was more than Rs.3500/ - pm. In this regard, trial court has referred to the rent note which was proved as Ex. PW -1/1/ DW -1/1, and also that the appellant/defendant in cross -examination admitted his signatures on this rent note. The relevant observations of the trial court are contained in paras 8 to 8.6 of its judgment dated 8.8.2006 and which paras read as under: