The admission of tenancy and the legal notice served by the plaintiffs justified the decree for possession. Lack of evidence to support the appellant's plea regarding the monthly rent led to its rejection.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, (Oral) J. - The present regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter, CPC) seeks to assail the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2021 passed by the learned ADJ in CS (DJ) No. 803 of 2019. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has decreed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs for possession by allowing the respondents' application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and has directed the appellant to handover the vacant possession of the suit property being Shop no. G-19, Vishwa Sadan, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property')

2. The suit property was initially let out by the respondents in favour of the appellant by way of a rent agreement in April/May, 2014 and the tenancy period in respect of the suit property was extended from time to time. While it is the case of the respondents that after the expiry of the previous rent agreement, the parties entered into a rent agreement on 22.08.2018 for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 01.09.2018 to 31.07.2019 at a monthly rent of Rs. 29,000/-, it is the appellant's case that the monthly rent of the suit property was only Rs. 2,900/-. It was the respondents' case that since the appellant failed to pay the rent for the month of July-September, 2019, a legal notice dated 07.09.2019 was served upon the appellant to pay arrears of rent and vacate the suit property. As the appellant neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the suit property, the respondents filed a suit for possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits.

3. The suit was defended by the appellant by filing a written statement, wherein the appellant contended that the suit for possession was not maintainable as the appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as interest free security to the respondent in respect of the suit property and was therefore entitled to occupy the suit property till the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was returned by the respondents. It was further averred that since the monthly rent of the suit property was Rs. 2,900/-, the learned Trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the appropriate remedy, if any, available with the respondents was to approach the competent authority under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

4. Based on the evidence led by the parties, the learned Trial Court, vide its impugned judgment has decreed the suit for possession by holding that once the appellant had admitted that he was inducted as a tenant in the suit property, the respondents were entitled to a decree for possession. The relevant findings of the learned Trial Court read as under:

'Therefore, as per this provision, Court can pass a judgment on the basis of the admissions made by any party whether in pleading, or orally or in writing, or otherwise. Ownership of the plaintiffs upon the suit property is not disputed by the defendant as there is no denial on behalf of the defendant regarding para no.1 of the plaint wherein this fact is mentioned. In para no.1 of the plaint it is also mentioned that defendant was a tenant in suit premises since 2014 and tenancy period was extended from time to time. These contents of para no.1 are also not denied. Therefore, this fact is also admitted by the defendant that he has possessed the suit property as a tenant of the plaintiffs. In para no.2 & 3 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have relied upon rent agreement dated 22.08.2019 executed between the parties. As per the said rent agreement, it commenced from 01.09.2018. As per para no.3 of the aforesaid rent agreement, it was for a period of 5 years, however, as per para no. 4 & 5 rent agreement was initially for 11 months only and it was extendable after 11 months with increase in the rent by 20 per cent. As per this agreement, monthly rent was Rs.29,000/- and plaintiffs have received Rs.51,000/- as refundable security from the defendant. In reply to this para no.2, the defendant has stated in WS that rent of the tenanted