Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
Pawan Kumar Gupta And Gurucharan Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Veena Dhingra And Another - Respondents
RFA 249 of 2021, CM Nos. 15993, 15995 of 2021
Decided on : 08-12-2021
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XII, XXXIX, VII and XVA - Rules 6, 10 and Rule 11 - Tenant - Rent Agreement - Payment of rent - Seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal - Appellants were inducted as tenants by a registered Rent Agreement executed with regard to suit property for a period of 11 months on payment of rent - On the expiry of the 11 months a fresh Rent Deed was executed between parties with regard to the suit property for payment of rent per month for a period of 22 months excluding electricity and maintenance charges - Same was registered, it was the case of respondents herein that on expiry of the tenancy of 11 months, the appellants agreed to continue to remain in occupation of the suit property as tenants exclusive of electricity and other charges on payment of a monthly rent.
Finding of the Court :
It is clear that appellants herein have admitted to the fact that landlord-tenant relationship exists between them and the respondents. They here admitted that they have been paying rent to respondents - The admission is clear and unequivocal, inasmuch as in a case of this nature what has to be seen is whether there exists landlord-tenant relationship; factum of tenancy has been accepted and the rent is being paid to the landlord. All the three aspects have been proved in this case. The learned Trial Court has rightly granted possession in favour of the respondents - Trial Court on this application has granted an amount of Rs.77,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. It was the case of the respondents before the learned Trial Court that the last rent paid by the appellants was in the month of May 2019. That effective from June 2019, admitted rent in terms of the registered Rent Deed, was not paid. The suit had been filed by the respondents on August 01, 2019. It is also not the case of appellants that they have given the possession of the suit property to respondents. The learned Trial Court has granted the admitted rent, I do not see any illegality in that regard.
Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
CM No. 15995/2021 (for delay)
This is an application filed by the appellants seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.
Application is disposed of.
RFA 249/2021
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants herein challenging the common order dated January 16, 2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge; 02, (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘Trial Court’, for short) on applications filed by the respondents herein under Order XII Rule 6 and Order XXXIX Rule 10 read with Order XVA Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’, for short). Suffice to state, vide the said order, the Trial Court has allowed both the applications. In the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, it directed the recovery of possession of the suit property being shop no.35, Lower Ground Floor, Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (‘suit property’, for short) and also in the application under Order XXXI Rule 10 read with Order XVA CPC it directed recovery of arrears of rent @ Rs.77,000/- per month along with interest at Rs.18% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realisation.
2. Some of the facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that, the appellants were inducted as tenants by a registered Rent Agreement executed on November 20, 2017 with regard to the suit property for a period of 11 months on payment of rent of Rs.70,000/- commencing from September 01, 2017. On the expiry of the 11 months a fresh Rent Deed was executed on October 05, 2018 between the parties with regard to the suit property for payment of rent of Rs.77,000/- per month for a period of 22 months excluding electricity and maintenance charges. The same was registered on October 26, 2018. It was the case of the respondents herein that on expiry of the tenancy of 11 months, the appellants agreed to continue to remain in occupation of the suit property as tenants exclusive of electricity and other charges on payment of a monthly rent of Rs.77,000/-.
3. It was also the case of the respondents that the appellants had last paid the rent of Rs.77,000/- for the month of May 2019 and not thereafter. This resulted in an issuance of notice dated June 28, 2019 by the respondents whereby the tenancy was terminated after the expiry of one month of receipt of said notice. The said Notice was duly served on the appellants on June 29, 2019. A reply dated July 24, 2019 to the said Notice was sent by the appellants through their Advocate.
4. The respondents had accordingly filed a suit before the Trial Court being CS. DJ No.747/2019, Smt. Veena Dhingra and Anr. v. Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta and Anr. It may be stated here that the appellants herein had also filed a suit being CS No.3437/2018 against the respondents herein for permanent and mandatory injunction. The prayers made in the suit CS. No. 3437/2018 are the following:
a. pass a decree of permanent injunction/directions restraining the defendants, his servants, representatives and associates not to enter & dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property i.e. premises/PROPERTY BEARING SHOP NO.35, AREA MEASURING 160 SQ. FEET, ON LOWER GROUND FLOOR, SITUATED AT GAFFAR MARKET, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI, without the due process of law, in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
b. pass a decree of mandatory injunction/directions restraining the defendants, his servants, representatives and associates to remove the stall installed in front of the suit property i.e. premises/PROPERTY BEARING SHOP NO.35, AREA MEASURING 160 SQ. FEET, ON LOWER GROUND FLOOR, SITUATED AT GAFFAR MARKET, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI, in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
c. Any other relief or remedy which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper m
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear, unambiguous, and unconditional admissions to exercise the discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, and the parameters for ....
Landlord can obtain possession of premises upon clear admissions about tenancy relations and formal lease termination, regardless of tenant's claims of extensions based on rent acceptance.
Judgment on admissions may be granted under Order XII Rule 6 when the Defendant accepts the tenancy and terms of rent, despite challenges to ownership.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the Court's discretion to grant relief under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC based on admissions of fact, and the requirement for a strong defense to succe....
The court emphasized the importance of lease deeds in establishing the landlord-tenant relationship and upheld the statutory rights of the landlord under the Transfer of Property Act and Commercial C....
Admissions in legal pleadings must be clear and unequivocal to grant a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC; otherwise, issues must proceed to trial.
The trial court can pass a decree under Order XII Rule 6 on the basis of clear admissions without requiring a trial, even if the defense has been struck off.
A tenant's admission of rent agreement and arrears can justify eviction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, making registration irrelevant for short-term leases.
(1) Tenant-Landlord relationship cannot come to an end on execution of Agreement to Sell – Even if consideration has been exchanged purchaser does not become owner of property till the time registere....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
