The court can decree a suit based on clear and unambiguous admissions made by the defendant, even if the defendant fails to file a reply to rebut the plaintiff's contentions.

Reva Khetrapal, J.

1. This order will dispose of an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by the plaintiff.

2. The facts succinctly stated for the purpose of the present order are that the plaintiff filed the above suit, inter alia, claiming recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 74,71,000/- along with the agreed rate of interest @ 18% per month predicated on a registered Lease Deed executed by the plaintiff on 19.11.2009, leasing to the defendant the commercial property bearing No. M-40 (Market), Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi-110048, having built up area of approximately 8,000 sq. ft. super area on a monthly rent of Rs. 9,50,000/- after deducting the TDS. The said lease was executed for a period of 9 years with the “lock-in-period” of 36 months, commencing from 01.11.2009. It was also agreed between the parties that the monthly rent shall be increased equivalent to 15% over and above the amount of rent last paid, every three years during the lease period. It was further agreed by the defendant that in case of any delay in paying the monthly rent beyond the period of first day of each calendar month, the same shall attract penal interest @ 18% per month on delayed monthly rent.

3. In terms of the Lease Deed, the possession of the said property was handed over to the defendant on the first day of November, 2009 for carrying out the repairs and doing the interiors, though the rent commenced from 01.01.2010. The term of the lease commencing from the effective date, that is, 01.11.2009, was to expire at the end of 108 months with the lock-in-period of 36 months as stated above. It was also agreed between the parties that in case the defendant terminates or causes breach of any term of the agreement during the lock-in-period, in that event the defendant shall pay the entire rent for the remaining lock-in-period, i.e., balance unexpired term of the lockin-period of 36 months and for the aforesaid purpose, the lessor shall have lien on the entire stocks, goods, machinery, equipment, inventories, etc. or any other item belonging to the lessee.

4. The plaintiff submits by way of the present application that the written statement filed by the defendant contains admissions regarding the execution of the registered Lease Deed dated 19.11.2009 and his being inducted in the demised premises pursuant to the said document. Plaintiff contends that, at the very threshold, the defendant has admitted the fact that the defendant had taken on lease the property bearing No. M-40 (Market), Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi at the monthly rent of Rs. 9,50,000/-. Further, the defendant in its written statement has not raised any dispute with regard to the execution or admissibility of Lease Agreement dated 19.11.2009. In such an eventuality, the said Lease Agreement is not only admitted but becomes legally binding on both the parties and only the contents of the document need to be read.

5. The plaintiff further contends that keeping in view the aforesaid, the suit deserves to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, inasmuch as admittedly there is an outstanding to the tune of Rs. 74,71,000/- on account of unpaid rent till May, 2011 and further liability to pay rent till the subsistence of the Lease Deed i.e. till 19.11.2012 is not denied. It is also contended that the defendant has agreed for the payment of penal interest @ 18% per month both present and future till the subsistence of the period of the lock-in-period of the Lease Deed. Thus, there is no triable issue left to be adjudicated in the present suit and the suit be decreed as prayed by the plaintiff.

6. The defendant, though given ample opportunity to file reply to the present application and granted one last opportunity on November 02, 2011, did not choose to file reply to rebut the contentions of the plaintiff. However, the defendant resists the application by contending that the facts on record are not sufficient to justify the passin