Back
Payal Vision Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Radhika Choudhary – Respondent
Key Points: - The court may grant a decree for possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC based on admissions about the landlord-tenant relationship and service of notice, even if the lease is unregistered, where there is no dispute on those two aspects. (!) (!) (!) - A tenancy can be month-to-month under Section 106 TPSA if not protected by Rent Control, and termination may be effected by service of a notice; the existence of the tenancy and its termination are pivotal for granting possession. (!) (!) - Admission of the lease and rent amount in pleadings can be used to infer jural relationship and tenancy, and such admissions can support decree for possession under Order XII Rule 6, with the precise scope depending on the factual context of the case. (!) (!) (!) - The tenant cannot deny landlord’s title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act when tenancy is established and attornment or conduct acknowledges landlord’s title, affecting challenges to title in eviction suits. (!) (!) (!) - The nature of use (residential vs commercial) may be immaterial for possession, though it may affect mesne profits. (!) (!) (!)
Judgment :-
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In a suit for possession and recovery of mesne profit filed by the plaintiff- appellant before the trial Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for possession in its favour on admissions, invoking the Court’s powers under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The trial Court examined the prayer and held that the jural relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted between the parties and so was the rate of rent as settled by them. Service of a notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant-respondent also being admitted, the trial Court saw no impediment in decreeing the suit for possession of the suit property. The application filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC was accordingly allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff to the extent it prayed for possession of the suit property decreed in its favour.
3. Aggrieved by the decree passed against the respondent, the respondent filed Regular First Appeal No. 81 of 2009 before the High Court of Delhi which was allowed by the High Court in terms of its order dated 14th March, 2011 reversing the judgme
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
