Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 30
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
Rajan Bhandari & Another - Appellant
Versus
Shriniwas Verma - Respondent
CM(M). No. 37 of 2020
Decided On : 05-01-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent:Karan Babuta, Advocate.
Admissions in a written statement can be crucial in establishing legal rights and liabilities. Non-compliance with court directions can lead to adverse legal consequences.
Headnote:
Decree of Possession - Tenancy Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure - Order 12 Rule 6
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for possession, permanent injunction, and damages against the petitioners, claiming to be the owner of a property rented to the petitioners. The trial court found admissions in the petitioners' written statement confirming the tenancy and passed a decree of possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners admitted to being tenants in the property and failing to pay rent and other charges, leading to the decree of possession. The court dismissed the petition, noting the petitioners' delay in complying with previous court directions.
Issues: The main issue was the tenancy dispute and the petitioners' failure to comply with court directions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the admissions in the petitioners' written statement to establish the tenancy and passed the decree of possession. The court also emphasized the petitioners' non-compliance with court directions.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were ordered to pay costs quantified at Rs. 25,000.
JUDGMENT :
1. Petitioner impugns judgment dated 30.09.2019 whereby decree of possession has been passed against the petitioner under order 12 rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure. Trial Court in the impugned order has held that in the Written Statement there are categorical admissions particularly in paragraphs 3(a) and (b) of the Written Statement.
2. Respondent has filed the subject Suit for Possession, Permanent Injunction and Damages against the Petitioners contending that respondent is the owner of built-up property bearing number 367 – A – 368 village Pana Udyan, Narela, Delhi consisting of ground floor and first floor.
3. It is contended in the plaint that the Petitioners approached the Respondent in the month of July 2017 and requested for grant of short period tenancy for two months. Since, the first floor of the property was lying vacant and there was time of four – five months in the shifting of the respondent’s son to the said property, Respondent agreed to give the portion of the suit property on the First Floor consisting of a two rooms set on rent for a short period of two months to the petitioner, with effect from August 2017 at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month excluding all charges.
4. It is contended that the petitioner shifted in the month of August 2017 on the first floor and started living therein. Respondent asked petitioner No. 1 to execute the Rent Agreement but the same was avoided by the petitioners and they assured that since they wanted the premises only for two to three months Respondent shouldn’t worry.
5. It is contended that petitioners only paid rent for two months vide cheques both for the sum of Rs. 4,000/- each. Petitioners thereafter neither vacated the premises nor paid the rent and other charges for the rest of the months. A cheque was given in the month of December 2017 for Rs 8,000/- but the same was dishonoured.
6. It is contended that on account of non-payment of rent and electricity charges, electricity to the portion of the petitioner got disconnected.
7. It is contended that Petitioners would quarrel with the respondent and even caused injury to the respondent for which an MLC was recorded on 29.04.2018 and a case was registered against the petitioners.
8. It is contended that even though petitioners did not pay the amount towards electricity charges, the electricity was restored consequent to directions issued by this court.
9. It is contended that since petitioners have neither paid the rent nor other charges, respondent has been constrained to file the subject Suit for Possession, Recovery of rent/damages and Permanent Injunction.
10. Trial court in the impugned order has reproduced the admissions made in paragraphs 3(a) and (b) of the Written Statement. Paragraphs 3(a) and (b) of the written statement read as under:
“(a) That the defendants are staying in the suit property along with children since 30.09.2018 as a tenants.
(b) At the time when the defendants took the property on rent from the plaintiff, the defendant paid an advance rent of Rs.4000/- through cheque dated 19.09.2018 and thereafter also paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as refundable security deposit in cash, however, despite time and again approaching the plaintiff to enter into a written lease agreement, the plaintiff kept dillydallying and has not executed an agreement in writing till date. In fact, the plaintiff had further received Rs. 4000/- (300/- cash and 3700/- by way of cheque) amounts from the defendant No. 1 in favour of Mr Binay Jodi for execute regd. Rentagreement, who is well-known of plaintiff. Copy of the passbook of the defendant no. 1 bearing customer ID No. 77854806 reflecting the payments made to the plaintiff and to Mr Binay Jogi, on account of plaintiff, is annexed herewith.”
11. In view of the above admissions made by the petitioners in the Written Statement in the impugned order, Trial Court has held that it is crystal clear that the Petitioners were tenants in respect of the Suit Property and since there is a cl
