NAKUL VISHNU.

D, 17040142016

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE AT PUNE

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Ram kumar verma

s/o Mr Ravi Kumar Verma age

(49) occupation- vehicle

mechanic

7/25 Kuruku sandhu , Pune, 550056 …… Appellant

Versus

Mr. Shanju Teja

s/o Mr Anil Teja age (58)

occupation- Real Estate,

2/34 Indra Gandhi Nagar, pune 550064 ..…Respondents

Sir,
It is respectfully submitted as under:

BRIEF FACTS
1. The appellant had filed a civil suit for the recovery of arrears of rent against the
respondent who was a tenant.
2. The trail court decided that the agreed rent is Rs.32000 per month by disallowing the
plea of the respondent.
3. The respondent filed first appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 25/12/2000
before the court of District Judge.
4. The first appeal was decided by the learned Additional District Judge who accepted the
appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trail Court.
5. That the judgment and decree passed by the court of Pune, Additional District Judge is
illegal on the facts of it being contrary to law and is liable to be set aside on the
following grounds:

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

1. That the judgment and decree passed by the court of Pune, reversing the judgment and
 decree of the court of Pune Additional District Judge, is illegal in view of the fact that
the said suit was for recovery of arrears of rent and not for any kind of possession of
premises.

2. That there is no bar for filing a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent in civil court under
section 38 of the Rent Control Act 1967 as held illegally by the first appellate court by
way of judgment dated 25/12/2000.

3. There is no provisions under the Rent Control Act 1967 for recovery of arrears of rent
without seeking the relief of eviction, hence the judgment and decree passed by the
court of Pune Additional District Judge is illegal and is bad in law.

4. That the judgment passed by the first appellate court is unsustainable in law in view of
the fact that s.38 of the Rent Control Act 1967 has no applicability to a suit for recovery
of arrears of rent.

5. The appellate court has acted without diligence and has not applied its mind to the law
involved and has interpreted s.38 of Rent Control Act 1967 mechanically.

It is, therefore, prayed that the judgment and decree of the judgment and decree of the
court of Pune Additional District Judge may please be set aside and judgment and
decree of the court of Pune District Judge, may be confirmed and regular second appeal
may please be accepted with costs throughout.

Appellant
Through
Place: Pune
Date: 27/12/2000 Counsel