These are two applications, one filed by the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) for a decree of possession on the basis of alleged admissions made by the defendant in the written statement, and the other by thedefendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit property is an agricultural land and that acivil suit in respect of such property is barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.

The facts relevant for the disposal of the two applications are as under:-

The plaintiff is theowner of land measuring 3.1 acres at No.1, Kapashera Estate, New Delhi (Farm House) with constructions thereon,consisting of a dwelling unit on the ground and first floor, a swimming pool and other amenities, such as, lawns, servant quarters, flower andvegetable plantation etc. The aforementioned farm-house was leased out by the plaintiff to the defendant-company for the residence of itsManaging Director for a period of two years at a monthly rental ofRs.1,60,000/- (excluding electricity and water charges) vide Lease Agreement dated September 10, 2004. The lease was terminated by the plaintiff by means of a legal notice dated September 25, 2006 and interms of the said notice, the tenancy of the defendant expired on October 31, 2006. Despite service of notice of termination, the defendant failed tohandover the vacant possession of the suit property and that led to the plaintiff filing the present suit praying for a decree of possession of thesuit property and for a decree for a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- being thearrears of rent for the months of September and October, 2006 @Rs.1,60,000/- per month along with pendentelite and future interest @24% per annum. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree of futuremesne profits from November 01, 2006 till handing over peaceful vacant possession of the suit property @ Rs.3,20,000/- per month or at any other higher market rate of similar premises situated in the locality.

The defendant in its written statement filed in response to the plaint, amongst others, has taken a preliminary objection to the verymaintainability of the suit on the ground that the suit property is an agricultural land and Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954prohibits a Civil Court to take cognizance of any suit, application orproceedings in respect of a matter pertaining to agricultural land. The defendant has also taken an alternative plea that the suit property beingagricultural land, the law requires termination of lease of such land bygiving six months’ notice expiring with the end of the year of tenancy andthat the plaintiff having not given any such notice, the suit is liable to bedismissed on this ground if not on any other ground. The defendant has also set-up a case that the lease between the parties was extended for a further period of 24months commencing from September 15, 2006 uptoSeptember 14, 2008 at an enhanced rate of Rs.1,75,000/- per month and hence, the termination of lease prior thereto was inconsequential.

Having regard to the pleadings of the parties, the question that arises for consideration is whether the provisions of theDelhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 are applicable to the suit property and if not, whetherthe pleadings as contained in the written statement constituteadmissions on the part of the defendant so as to entitle the plaintiff for a decree of possession?

What is an agricultural land in terms of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 is defined in Section 3(13) of the said Act. The relevant extract of the same runs as under:-

“3Definitions-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires

1. ……………………………

2. ……………………………

3. ……………………………

…………………………….

13- “land” except in sections 23 and 24, means landheld or occupied for purpose connected withagriculture, horticulture or animal husbandryincluding pisciculture and poultry farming andincludes –

(a). Buildings appur