The non-registration of an agreement to sell can impact the possession rights of the parties, and the relationship of landlord and tenant continues to govern their rights and obligations.

VIPIN SANGHI, J. (OPEN COURT)

1. The present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2015 passed by the learned ADJ-02 (NW), Rohini Courts, Delhi in RCA No.24/2013, whereby the said first appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant has been dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, namely, CCJ cum ARC (NW) Rohini Courts, Delhi dated 26.03.2012 in Suit No.325/2011 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC has been upheld.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit, inter alia, claiming a decree for ejectment/possession in respect of the suit property by claiming that he is the owner and landlord thereof and that the defendant is his tenant.

3. In the written statement filed by the defendant, the defence of the defendant/appellant was, inter alia, as follows:

“It is submitted that the plaintiff was owner of the suit property before November 2007. It is submitted that the plaintiff let out the premises on rent. The defendant took the suit premises on rent of Rs.300/- per month excluding water charges and electricity charges.”

4. The defendant also claimed that the parties had entered into an agreement whereunder the defendant agreed to purchase the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.4 lacs. According to the defendant, the defendant claimed that the parties visited the office of one Sh. Surender Kumar Jolly, Advocate at Tis Hazari Courts for preparation of documents, whereafter the agreement was executed. The defendant, however, stated that he is not possessed of the original documents and he has already filed a police complaint in respect of the loss of the said documents. The plaintiff, however, denied entering into any such agreement with the defendant.

5. The plaintiff moved an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for claiming a decree on admission on the basis that the defendant had admitted that he was a tenant before the alleged agreement to sell was entered into. The plaintiff claimed that the defence of the defendant qua the alleged agreement to sell was frivolous and unsubstantiated, as no agreement had been produced.

6. The Trial Court allowed the allowed the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC by observing, inter alia, as follows:

“It is admitted by the defendant in written statement that he was inducted as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.300/- before 2007 but in 2007 the plaintiff sold the property to the defendant for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and executed the documents in Tis Hazari Courts in the chamber of Surender Kumar Jolly, Advocate but no such document has been placed on record & the plea taken by the defendant is that he left the original documents in the chamber of some advocate to whom he met in consultation with the present case but the defendant has failed to disclose the name of any such Advocate or his address. The defendant has admitted the execution of rent agreement but rate of rent is different. He is admitting that rate of rent is Rs. 300/- per month. Since there is clear admission regarding rent agreement & the defence taken by the defendant is without any support of the documents.

Plaintiff has cited “Rama Devi Vs. Punam Chand Aggarwal” 2008 (4) Civil Court Cases 701 (Delhi) wherein it is held that “this is well settled that admission need not be made expressly in the pleadings, even on constructive admission the Court can proceed to pass a decree in plaintiff's favour under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.”

In “Gajender Kumar Loond Vs. Samant Barara” in IA no. 13740/2011 in CS (OS) 1132/2011 it is held that “it is now well-established that admissions are not restricted to pleading. More often than not, contents of the plaint are denied in order to delay proceedings and procrastinate the incidence of liability. Admissions can, therefore, be justly and soundly drawn even from attending circumstances, such as pleadings in other suits or proceedings, or documents exchanged between the parties. In fact, in my