Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral):--

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the impugned orders of the trial court dated 3.11.2012 and 5.2.2013. By the order dated 3.11.2012, the application of the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for granting the relief of possession with respect to the suit /tenanted premises has been dismissed. By the order dated 5.2.2013 the application of the petitioners/plaintiffs for payment of arrears of rent was dismissed. Since one petition cannot be filed against two separate orders on two separate applications having two separate subject matters, on the request of the counsel for the petitioner this petition is taken as a petition for challenging only the order dated 3.11.2012 by which the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC has been dismissed. At the request of the petitioner, liberty is granted to challenge the order dated 5.2.2013 by means of appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

2. At the outset I must express my surprise and consternation in the trial court dismissing such an important application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC by just a one line order as under:-

“On hearing the arguments, in my considered opinion, judgment on admissions cannot be passed.”

3. Such type of a non-speaking order is unheard of in our jurisprudence. An order passed by a court has necessarily to be a speaking order including because only a speaking order will show the reasoning thereof so that an appellate court can understand the validity of the reasons. It is wholly impermissible in law to pass a one line order dismissing an application as crucial as an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC in a suit for possession filed by a landlord against a tenant.

4. The facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the subject suit for possession and mesne profits against the respondent/defendant-company with respect to the tenanted premises being ground floor property No. 25, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi-110016. Petitioners/plaintiffs claimed that the original owner of the property was one Sardar Balwant Singh who expired on 13.6.1991. The suit property was thereafter leased out to the respondent/defendant-company by three persons as per the written statement filed by the defendant-company namely Smt. Satwinder Kaur, Sh. Jasbir Singh Cheema and Sh. Gurpreet Singh. Smt. Satwinder Kaur and Sh. Gurpreet Singh and Sh. Jasbir Singh who are the legal heirs of one deceased son Gurmit Singh Cheema, son of late Sh. Balwant Singh. Gurmit Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of Smt. Satwinder Kaur, Sh. Jasbir Singh Cheema and Gurprit Singh had only 1/6th coownership rights in the suit property because Sh. Balwant Singh died leaving behind the five other legal heirs besides Gurmit Singh Cheema. The other five legal heirs are Smt. Darshan Kaur (daughter), Smt. Gurmeet Kaur (daughter), Smt. Rupinder Kaur (daughter) and Sh. Inderjeet (son) and Sh. Gurdev Singh (son). The lease deed dated 1.8.2010 was created in favour of the respondent-defendant/company with rent admittedly at Rs. 25,000/- per month. The lease is an unregistered lease deed, and consequently, the period of three years as mentioned in the lease deed will not be the period of lease, inasmuch as, tenants under an unregistered lease deed is only a month to month tenant. The five other legal heirs of Sh. Balwant Singh (including one deceased Sh. Gurmeet Singh Cheema through his three legal heirs) by a registered relinquishment deed relinquished their 4/6th undivided share in the property No. 25, measuring 144 sq. yds Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs who are two sons of Sh. Balwant Singh. These two sons in whose favour, the other five co-owners had relinquished their rights by virtue of the registered relinquishment deed dated 1.9.2011, have filed the subject suit against the respondent/defendant/tenant.

5. A reading of the written statement shows that there is no dispute that the defendant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document