The judgment emphasizes the power of the court to grant a summary judgment based on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code, highlighting the importance of clear and unambiguous admissions in legal proceedings.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

1. The present Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) impugns the judgment and decree dated 9th May, 2016 passed by the learned ADJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 508/15 titled M.C. Gupta vs. Ram Kumar Sharma filed by the respondent/plaintiff [respondent herein] for recovery of possession, damages, pendente lite and future interest with cost, whereby the application of the respondent under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code was allowed and the appellant/defendant [appellant herein] was directed to hand over possession of the suit property bearing house no. 135, Ground Floor, Surya Niketan, Delhi, (subject premises) alongwith costs to the respondent. The appellant was further directed to pay damages @ Rs. 18,000/- per month along with 10% interest from the month of May, 2016 till the handing over of the vacant possession of the subject premises.

2. For the purposes of adjudicating the present appeal, it would be relevant to elaborate on certain admitted facts in the said Suit No. 508/15 (‘said Suit’). They are as follows:-

(i) The respondent/landlord instituted the said Suit for recovery of possession, damages and pendente lite and future interest as well as costs against the appellant.

(ii) The averments made by the respondent in the said Suit was that the subject premises had been leased out to the appellant, by way of a registered Lease Deed dated 13th July, 2007 and the rental for which, at the time of institution of the suit, was Rs. 32,000/- per month in all, out of which a sum of Rs. 18,000/- per month was paid by cheque and the balance amount of Rs. 14,000/- per month was paid by cash.

(iii) The respondent further averred in the said Suit that the said tenancy had been duly terminated by a notice in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

(iv) The respondent prayed that the said Suit ought to be decreed in terms of an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code, in view of the clear and unambiguous admissions on behalf of the appellants as follows:-

(a) Admission qua the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the appellant herein by virtue of a registered Lease Deed dated 3rd July, 2007;

(b) Admission on behalf of the appellant that the subject premises was let out for a residential purpose;

(c) Admission that after the initial term of lease, the same had been extended at the request of the appellant at an enhanced rate of rent;

(d) Admission of receipt of service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in terms of the meaning of the provision of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and

(e) Admission of payment of Rs. 18,000/- per month by cheque as rent for the use and occupation of the subject premises.

3. At this juncture, it would be relevant to point out that on a specific query from this Court, it has been admitted on behalf of the appellant that:-

(i) No reply, whatsoever, was filed on behalf of the respondent to the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code in the said Suit, denying the admissions asserted to have been made on his behalf, in his written statement and at the bar; and

(ii) The appellant had last paid rent @ Rs. 18,000/- per month by cheque.

4. In the backdrop of the afore-stated factual matrix, the learned ADJ arrived at the following findings, which are extracted hereinbelow:-

“3. The defendant appeared on being summoned by the court and filed written statement denying other facts, except, admitting to the extent that the defendant has already been paying the rent of the said premises @ Rs. 18,000/- per month through cheque. The plaintiff has also stated that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any damages, pendent lite and future interests and cost of suit etc.

4. In terms of admission of the defendant, the plaintiff filed the present application under Order XII Rule