Back
2011 Supreme(Del) 690
HIGH COURT OF DELHI NEW DELHI
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
RAKESH BASRA ..... Plaintiff
Versus
SATSAGAR GUPTA ..... Defendant
IA No. 13117/2011in CS (OS) No. 1936/2008
Decided on : 13.12.2011
Mr Mohit Chaudhary, Adv. with Mr Dheeraj Gupta, Mr Aditya Das and Ms Rashi Bansal, Advs.
Nemo.
The court applied Order XII Rule 6, CPC to expedite the trial based on the defendant's admissions, emphasizing the importance of admitted facts in landlord-tenant disputes.
Headnote:
Eviction - Landlord and Tenant Dispute - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Order XII Rule 6, CPC - Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - [48/2, Ground Floor, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi] - [Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 106; Order XII Rule 6, CPC]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a decree of eviction against the defendant for non-payment of increased rent and outstanding dues. The defendant disputed the eviction, alleging fault on the part of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant had not made specific denials to the allegations made in the plaint, thereby admitting the allegations. The court applied Order XII Rule 6, CPC and passed a preliminary decree for eviction and possession in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: The issues included entitlement to eviction, recovery of arrears of rent, outstanding electricity and water dues, damages, and interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the admitted facts of the landlord-tenant relationship, non-payment of rent, and the legal notice sent under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It applied Order XII Rule 6, CPC to expedite the trial due to the defendant's admissions.
Final Decision: The court granted a preliminary decree for eviction and possession in favor of the plaintiff, directing the defendant to vacate the premises within two months.
1. By this order, I propose to decide the I.A. No.13117 of 2011 filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule read with Section 151 of CPC a decree of eviction to evict the defendant and anyone acting on his behalf for the property bearing No.48/2, Ground Floor, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
2. As per the facts mentioned in the plaint, property bearing No. 48/2, Ground Floor, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) was let out to the defendant on 28.01.2004 vide rent agreement dated 28.01.2004 w.e.f. 01.02.2004 for a period of 11 months for a monthly rent of Rs.13000/-.
3. It is stated by the plaintiff that after the expiry of 3 years since the tenancy was created, the plaintiff asked the defendant to increase the monthly rent to Rs.17000/- as the rental value of the suit property had also increased accordingly. But, the defendant, on the contrary, instead of increasing the rent, stopped payment of rent to the plaintiff since April 2007.
4. Therefore, the plaintiff sent a legal a legal notice to the defendant dated 17.05.2007 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to the defendant asking him to vacate the suit property. In reply to the said notice, the defendant alleged that the suit property was let out to him for residential cum commercial purpose and that the delay in payment of rent was also due to the fault of the plaintiff since he was delaying the renovation work of the entire building.
5. It is further stated by the plaintiff that on 18.03.2008 the defendant issued a cheque bearing No. 185150 amounting to Rs.13000/- in favour of the plaintiff towards part payment of outstanding rent but, the same was returned by the bank vide it cheque returning memo dated 25.03.2008 with the remark “Signature on Alteration Differs”.
6. In the present application, it is stated by the plaintiff that the defendant has not made a specific denial to any of the allegations made in the plaint, consequently admitting the allegations made in the plaint. Further, it stated by the plaintiff that the defendant has categorically made the following admissions in the pleadings:-
(a) Existence of relationship of Landlord and Tenant.
(b) Receipt of legal notice dated17.05.2007.
(c) Reply dated 22.05.2007 to legal notice.
(d) Other relevant admissions in lieu of the fact that there is no specific denial in the Written Statement.
7. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the need for leading of evidence for the first issue farmed by this court does not arise and thus, a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties.
8. The issues in the present case were framed on 14.09.2010 reads as under:-
“(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of eviction in respect of ground floor of the property bearing No.48/2, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of `2.26 lacs towards arrears of rent from May, 2008 and further rent /damages @ `17,000/- per month till the date of eviction? OPP (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of a sum of `1 lac on account of outstanding amount of electricity and water dues from the defendant? OPP (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of damages amounting to `15 lacs and `3 lacs as damages on account of unauthorized user of the terms? OPP (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so at what rate and for what period. OPP (6) Relief.”
9. In the reply to the present application, the defendant has merely stated that the tenancy between the parties has not been terminated validly, therefore the instant suit itself not maintainable and that the defendant cannot conditionally terminate the tenancy only for the purpose of seeking higher rent. According to the defendant, the question that whether the plaintiff can charge the rent at a higher rate is a matter of adjudication.
10. In the presen
