S.L. BHAYANA, J. By this order, I propose to dispose of the plaintiff’s application under Order XII Rule VI CPC for judgment on admission in respect of the suit property in view of the admission as to relationship of landlord and the tenant, rate of rent, and termination of tenancy by way of notice.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit property bearing number C-42, Wazirpur, Industrial Area, New Delhi and for recovery of rupees fifteen lakhs as damages for illegal use and occupation and future damages from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree.

3. Briefly stating the case set up by the applicant/plaintiff in the suit is that:

(i) By way of oral agreement suit premises were let out to the Non applicant/defendant at a monthly rent of rupees two lakhs and eleven thousand excluding water and electricity charges.

(ii) The tenancy in respect of suit property was month to month according to English calendar starting from 15th day of each English calendar month and was to expire on the 14th day of the subsequent English calendar month.

(iii) Vide legal notice dated 09/10/07 under section 106 TPA tenancy was terminated by the plaintiff and the defendant was called upon to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property.

(iv) Another communication dated 24.10.07 was also sent to the defendant regarding the termination of the tenancy.

(v) After initial notice plaintiff does not accept any rent for use and occupation. Since the defendant failed to hand over the possession of the suit property, relief has been sought through instant suit.

4. The defendant resisted the instant suit by contending that the plaintiff has let out the suit premises for a period of six years commencing from 01.04.04 at a monthly rental of rupees 2,11,000/- and thus lease between the plaintiff and defendant is still subsisting and the plaintiff is deliberately refusing to accept rent since November 2007. The defendant has specifically disputed the fact of service of notice of termination of tenancy.

5. In a matter pertaining to ejectment of tenant in Delhi three admissions are sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to a decree on admission where:

(i) The relationship of tenant and landlord is admitted.

(ii) Termination of tenancy is admitted.

(iii) Rate of rent is admittedly more than Rs.3,500/- per month, Defendants would be entitled to judgment under order 12 R.6 (see Laxmikant Shrikanth HUF Vs. M.N.Dastoor, 71 (1978) DLT 564 and K. Kishore and construction HUF Vs. Allahabad Bank, 71 (1978) DLT 581). 6. As regards the provision of Order XII Rule VI CPC is concerned, it is well settled that a decree can be passed either on admission of facts or on question of law. Dealing with objective and scope of Order XII Rule VI CPC, Supreme Court has observed in Uttam Singh Duggal Vs. UOI, AIR 2000 SC 2740 as under:

“As to the object of the Order XII Rule 6, we need not say anything more than what the Legislature itself has said when the said provision came to be amended. In the objects and reasons set out while amending the said rule, it is stated "where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled." We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule, as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed.”

7. This issue has also been dealt by this court in the case of Delhi jAl Board Vs. Surendra P. Malik ,104 (2003) DLT 151; and Shri Rajiv Sharma and Anr. vs. Sh. Rajiv Gupta, AIR 2004