Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 2263
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Bhawanjeet Singh - Appellant
Versus
Diwan Singh - Respondent
RSA 55 of 2016
Decided On : 11-07-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent: Mr. Anuj Arora
The main legal point established is that implied admissions can be the basis of a decree of a suit under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
Headnote:
Delhi Rent Control Act - Eviction - Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act - Order 12 Rule 6 CPC
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a Regular Second Appeal against the decree of possession in favor of the respondent/landlord. The appellant failed to appear in court, and the court considered the admissions made by the appellant regarding the tenancy and payment of rent to the landlord.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant admitted to being a tenant and paying rent to the respondent/landlord. The court also noted that the challenge to the registered lease deed would be time-barred.
Issues: The issues revolved around the tenancy, payment of rent, and the challenge to the registered lease deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Order 12 Rule 6 CPC to determine the validity of the tenancy and the admissions made by the appellant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for its consideration.
1. This matter is taken up today in view of Notification No.1078/G-4/Genl./DHC dated 6.7.2016.
2. Appearance of the counsel for the appellant has been awaited for more than 45 minutes. Though, this second appeal was fixed as per an early hearing application for changing the date from 11.7.2016 to 8.7.2016, today, however it is the date fixed i.e. 11.7.2016. There is therefore no reason for the counsel for the appellant not to appear in spite of the Court waiting for him for a considerable period of time. Obviously, since the appellant/defendant/tenant has a stay order in his favour against eviction hence possibly there is convenient non-appearance.
3. This Regular Second Appeal is filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below; of the trial Court dated 10.8.2015 and the First Appellant Court dated 11.12.2015; by which the suit for possession filed by the respondent/landlord against the appellant/defendant/tenant has been decreed.
4. In the city of New Delhi once the rent is beyond Rs.3,500/- per month then a tenant has no protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act. Once, the tenanted premises are outside the area of operation of the Delhi Rent Control Act a tenant can seek protection against eviction only if there is a registered lease deed for a specific period and the tenant is sought to be illegally evicted within the period specified in the registered lease agreement. Once, rent is above Rs.3,500/- per month and there is no registered lease agreement or the period of lease agreement has expired, an owner/landlord is entitled to possession of tenanted premises on the tenancy of the tenant being terminated. Even on the aspect of termination of tenancy, it has been held in different judgments of this Court that any issue as to non-service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is irrelevant, inasmuch as, service of summons in the suit can be taken as notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
5. Both the courts below have exhaustively dealt with the existence of admissions entitling the respondent/plaintiff to a decree for possession under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, and the relevant paragraphs in this regard of the judgment of the First Appellate Court are as under:-
“8. Repelling the contention of the defendant that he was not inducted in the suit property as tenant by the plaintiff and further that the lease deed dated 31.08.2010 and subsequent agreement dated 27.08.2012 were got signed from him by the plaintiff fraudulently, ld. Trial Court observed in para 7 of the impugned judgment as under:-
“It is apparent from the Written Statement that the defendant has explicitly not admitted to the existence of a landlord tenant relationship with the plaintiff. However, in the whole body of the written statement, the defendant has alleged that he has been regularly paying rent to the plaintiff on all occasions. The defendant has claimed that the rent agreement dated 31.08.2010, as relied upon by the plaintiff was got signed by him by practicing fraud on the pretext of execution of a General Power of Attorney and some other documents. The plaintiff has also propounded another agreement dated 27.08.2012, by which he claimed that the defendant had agreed to vacate the suit property by 14.02.2013. The execution of this agreement dated 27.08.2012 is again not disputed by the defendant, but it is his plea that his signatures on the said agreement were also taken by the plaintiff by practicing fraud. It is noticed that the rent agreement dated 31.08.2010 is a registered document which even bears the photograph of the plaintiff as well as the defendant. It is common knowledge that a registered document carries the presumption of genuineness, unless otherwise proved. The execution of this rent agreement dated 31.08.2010 has not been disputed by the defendant, but he has come up with a plea that his signatures were taken on the pretext of executing some other documents. The defendant has however, r
