Important pointOrder XII Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code is enacted for the purpose of and in Order to expedite the trials if there is any admission on behalf of the defendants or an admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order XII Rule 6—Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958—Section 6A r/ws 8—Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 106 —Joint tenancy—Determination of—Suit premises had been let out to four brothers—Rent stipulated in the lease deed was Rs. 2500/- p.m.—Rent was increased from time to time at the rate of 10 percent per month—Total rent now payable is more than Rs. 3,500/-—Respondent 1 filed a suit for eviction as well as for recovery of arrears of rent—Defence put in by defendants that the tenancy was not a joint one but it was a separate, independent and distinct tenancy of the four individuals, therefore, provisions of the Rent Act were applicable—It was pleaded that quantum of rent of each individual tenant did not exceed Rs. 3500/- p.m.—It was also contended that there should have been four separate notices for four separate tenancies and that single notice cannot terminate the four tenancies—Application under Order XII Rule 6 was filed by the plaintiff for passing a judgment on the admission made in the pleadings—Whether maintainable—(Yes)—Trial Court was not justified in declining to pass an order of eviction.
       Held : A perusal of the lease deed clearly shows that the demised premises was taken on monthly rent of Rs. 2500/- by the sons of Late Devi Dass Mehra i.e. all the four brothers and it further says as follows:
       “And whereas the Lessees have agreed to take the demised premises on lease on the covenants and conditions mutually agreed to and appearing..”
       Therefore, it clearly stipulates that this lease deed has been executed in favour of all the brothers jointly and it is a composite one and not individual one. Detailed perusal of the lease deed leaves no manner of doubt in the matter that this was a composite and joint tenancy and it was executed on behalf of the landlady on the one side and all the four brothers on the other side. The rent stipulated in the lease deed is Rs. 2500/- in toto. It is not disputed that the total rent now payable is more than Rs. 3500/-. It cannot be split up into four portions so as to bring the building within the fold of Rent Act. Therefore, we are of opinion that the tenancy in question was a joint/composite one and it is not an individual lease of the demised premises which is a show room and the defendants had to pay the rent jointly. This was the only basic question which needed to be determined and the learned Single Judge of the High Court has correctly appreciated the matter. The letters exchanged do not in any way demolish the admissions flowing from the lease deed which is the primary document. (Para 7)
       In fact, Order XII Rule 6, C.P.C. is enacted for the purpose of and in order to expedite the trials if there is any admission on behalf of the defendants or an admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute; then, in such a case in order to expedite and dispose of the matter such admission can be acted upon. In the present case, looking at the terms of lease deed, there can be no two opinions that the tenancy was joint/composite and not individual one. Therefore, on these admitted facts the view taken by learned Single Judge of the High Court appears to be justified. (Para 8)
       Therefore, in the present case, as appearing to us, there is a clear admission on behalf of the defendants that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenants, the rent is more than Rs. 3500/- and the tenancy is joint and composite one. As such on these admitted facts, there is no two opinion in the matter and the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the High Court appears to be correct and there is no ground to interfere in this Special Leave Petition. (Para 8)

Judgment

A.K. Mathur, J.—This Special Leave Petition is filed against an order dated August 25, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi whereby learned Single Judge has set aside the order dated February 13, 2004 passed by the trial court whereby the trial court declined to pass an order of eviction moved by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as “C.P.C.”) and observed that the application made at this stage is not maintainable and the suit shall be decided recording necessary evidence of the parties in order to do complete justice and dismissed the application of the plaintiff filed under Order XII Rule 6, C.P.C. Hence the present revision was filed before the High Court. The said revision application came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on August 25, 2004.

2. In order to dispose of the present petition, brief facts may be detailed herein. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages/mesne profit against the defendant-petitioners alleging therein that the premises in question was let out to the defendant-petitioners jointly on a monthly rent of Rs. 2500/- vide agreement dated September 4, 1977. The tenancy commenced with effect from October 1, 1977. The rent was increased from time to time at the rate of 10 per cent per month. For the period from September 1, 1998 to August 31, 2001 the defendant-petitioners paid rent at the rate of Rs. 3327/- per month. On July 28, 2001 the plaintiff-respondent No.1 served a notice on the defendant-petitioners under Section 6A read with Section 8 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”), notifying therein that the rent would be increased by 10 per cent with effect from September 1, 2001. Since the monthly rent of the demised premises became Rs. 3659/- which is more than Rs. 3500/- with effect from September 1, 2001, the provisions of the Act ceased to apply to the demised premises. The plaintiff - respondent No.1 then terminated the tenancy of the defendant-petitioners by separate legal notice dated October 8, 2001. The said notice was duly served on the defendant-petitioners by registered post with acknowledgement due on October 11, 2001. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 thereupon filed the suit for recovery of possession as well as for recovery of arrears of rent for the month of September & October, 2001 and pendente lite and future interest and mesne profit/damages at the rate of Rs. 40,000/-.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant-petitioners by filing written statement. The defendants did not dispute the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also admitted that the tenancy commenced from October 1, 1977 on a monthly rent of Rs. 2500/- under rent note dated September 4, 1977. The rent was increased from time to time by serving notice under Section 6A of the Act. Service of notice dated July 28, 2001 under Section 6A of the Act and notice dated 8th October, 2004 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not denied. The defence put in by the defendant-petitioners was that the tenancy was not a joint one but it was a separate, independent and distinct tenancy of the four individuals and they were liable to pay rent individually. In their written statement they also made a reference to letters dated August 3, 1992 and September 17, 1992, which according to the defendants, supported their version that they were separate, independent and distinct tenants. It was pointed out that in the communication made by the plaintiff on September 17, 1992 the plaintiff refused to accept the cheque for a sum of Rs. 42,000/- as it was tendered on behalf of one of the defendants only. But later on the plaintiff accepted the cheque on March 24, 1994 for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- which was tendered on behalf of all four defendants. This according to the defendants, i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 455

Important pointOrder XII Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code is enacted for the purpose of and in Order to expedite the trials if there is any admission on behalf of the defendants or an admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute.

Cases Referred (1)