JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed impugning the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the application of the respondent/landlord under order XII Rule 6 of the CPC directing ejectment of the appellant-tenant. Another contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-company is with regard to the imposition of cost of Rs.25,000/- while dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. However, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that he is not aggrieved by the order dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC but is aggrieved due to imposition of cost of Rs.25,000/- .
2. Learned counsel has contended that the impugned order could not have been passed by the learned Single Judge on the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC because there was no unequivocal admission on the part of the appellant in the written statement. He has contended that the appellant has challenged the relationship of the landlord and tenant on the ground that the respondent was not the owner of the tenancy premises in question. It has also been contended before us that the appellant has also disputed the notice of termination of tenancy and argued that in view of the property having been re-entered by the DDA, which was the paramount Lesser, the status of the respondent as a landlord stood extinguished as his title to the property itself had extinguished. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has cited (2002) 2 SCC-50 and (1965) 2 SCR- 233.
3. We have given our careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties. The reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant on Vasu Deo v. Balkishan [(2002) 2 SCC-50] is, in our view, of no help to the appellant. A notice of re-entry is merely a notice. In our opinion, it does not extinguish the title of the respondent because actual possession has not been taken over by the DDA. The notice has been given because the respondent allegedly violated the terms of lease with the paramount Lesser (DDA), by letting the premises to the appellant. There may be a dispute between the DDA (paramount Lesser) and the respondent (Lesser of the appellant) which normally ends in settlement and imposition of some penalty. More often than not the property is not physically and actually entered. In our opinion, the appellant cannot take advantage of the notice of the DDA to the respondent specially because the respondent has not yet been evicted. The second case cited by the learned counsel for the appellant deals with succession to a religious institution in Punjab-Haryana. That was a case of dispute between a “Chela” and a “Guru Bhai” of the deceased “Mahant”. The facts are distinguishable and the said ruling, in our view, is not applicable to the facts of the case before us.
4. The learned Single Judge has recorded in his order that the appellant has not denied the receipt of the notice dated 16.11.2002 determining tenancy w.e.f. 31.5.2003 i.e. the last day of the tenancy month. Once the notice, terminating the tenancy, has been received and there is no denial of the same, to our mind, the challenge to the notice is vexatious and malafide. We have perused the entire order. We do not feel that the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the conduct of the appellant, has reached a wrong conclusion in passing an order of recovery of possession against the appellant. We may also add that in view of the admissions of the appellant-company and simultaneously its attack on the title of the landlord is a gross violation of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act under which the tenant cannot challenge the title of the landlord. Besides, there are other defaults on the part of the appellant-tenant like non-payment of water and electricity charges, etc., while it (the tenant company) is still enjoying the property. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in imposing a cost of Rs.25,000/- while dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same is therefore dismissed.