respondent/ plaintiff in cash without reducing the same into writing and without obtaining any receipt of the said amount from the respondent/ plaintiff. The appellant/ defendant also wants the Court to believe that the respondent/ plaintiff agreed to drastically reduce the rent from Rs.12,000/to Rs.2,000/- per month, i.e. a reduction of Rs.10,000/- per month merely because the appellant/ defendant claims to have advanced a sum of Rs.5 Lacs as “security” (which is refundable by its very nature) to the respondent/ plaintiff. The reduction of Rs.10,000/- per month translates to Rs.1,20,000/per year, which, in turn, would translate to interest @ 24% per annum on the amount of Rs.5 Lacs. Apparently, the said plea was set up with the planning that the suit property could be claimed to come within the purview of the DRC Act. Unfortunately for the appellant/ defendant, what he overlooked is the fact that the suit property, in any event, is beyond the purview of the DRC Act on account of its being a new property – a fact which he has not materially denied in his written statement and, therefore, the same stands admitted. Was the Court obliged to even frame an issue on the said plea of the appellant/ defendant? In my view, certainly not. The Courts, repeatedly, have had to deal with such dishonest and frivolous pleas set up by parties with a view to prolong the litigation and to deny relief to the opposite party, and repeatedly the Courts have seen through such dishonest ways of the party adopting such tactics and device such stratagem.
