Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 2678

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Gaurang Kanth, J.
Kanika Mittal – Appellant
Versus
Kavita Sardana & Anr. – Respondents
RFA 77 of 2023
Decided On : 10-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Himanshu Yadav and Mr.Anirudh Jamwal, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr. Sidhant Kumar and Mr.Shivankar Rao, Advocates, for the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of clear and unequivocal admissions in pleadings, the application of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the consequences of failing to file the written statement and reply to the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

Headnote:
Judgment - Lease Agreement - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XII Rule 6, Order XXXIX Rule 10 - [Order XII Rule 6, Order XXXIX Rule 10] - The court discussed the application of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows for judgment on admissions of fact made by the defendant. The court highlighted the importance of clear, unambiguous, unconditional, and unequivocal admissions in pleadings and their binding nature. The court also discussed the application of Order XXXIX Rule 10, which allows for the direction to deposit monthly rent. The court emphasized the significance of the admitted rent and termination notice in the case and how they influenced the decision to pass a decree for recovery of possession and directed the defendant to pay monthly rent until the date of vacating the premises.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, which partly decreed the suit filed by the respondents for possession of the leased property and directed the appellant to deposit the admitted rent. The respondents terminated the Lease Agreement and filed a suit for ejectment, possession, and mesne profits against the appellant. The appellant failed to file a written statement and reply to the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The Trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondents under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and directed the appellant to vacate the suit property.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was a clear and unequivocal admission on behalf of the appellant regarding the landlord-tenant relationship, monthly rent, and receipt of the lease termination letters. The court also found that the appellant adopted delaying tactics and failed to file the written statement and reply to the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The court concluded that there was no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and dismissed the appeal. However, the court directed the appellant to vacate the suit property by a specified date and pay all arrears of rent and statutory charges.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the termination of the Lease Agreement, the appellant's failure to file the written statement and reply to the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, and the appellant's attempt to delay the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the clear admission made by the appellant, the appellant's failure to file the written statement and reply to the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, and the appellant's attempt to delay the proceedings. The court also considered the lease term and the appellant's minor son's academic year in granting time for vacating the premises.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to vacate the suit property by a specified date and pay all arrears of rent and statutory charges.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. (Oral)

The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

CAV 71/2023

1. Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of the caveators/respondents. Accordingly, caveat stands discharged.

CM APPL. 4642/2023 (Exemption)

2. Application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

3. Application stands disposed of.

RFA 77/2023 and CM APPL. 4641/2023 (for stay)

4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Learned counsel for the Appellant confirms that he filed complete Trial Court record in accordance with the High Court Rules.

BRIEF FACTS RELEVANT FOR DISPOSAL OF THE PRESENT APPEAL

5. The appellant (original defendant) is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.12.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge-06, South East, Saket Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No.92/2022 titled `Mrs. Kavita Sardana & Anr. vs. Ms. Kanika Mittal'.

6. Vide the impugned judgment, learned Trial Court was pleased to allow the application filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs) under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and partly decreed the suit filed by the respondents qua the relief of possession. The learned Trial Court further allowed the application filed by the respondents under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC and directed the appellant to deposit the admitted rent @ Rs.90,000/- per month from 07.09.2022 till she vacates the premises i.e. D-290, Second Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `suit property').

7. The respondents are the owners of the suit property. The respondents under the Lease Agreement dated 23.03.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the `Lease Agreement') leased out the suit property to the appellant for a period of eleven (11) months from 01.04.2022 to 28.02.2023 at a monthly rent of Rs.90,000/- along with other charges for maintenance. Further, in view of Clause (4) of the Lease Agreement, the appellant paid a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- (Rupees One Lac Thirty Five Thousand only) towards security deposit to secure performance under the Lease Agreement. As per Clause (16) of the Lease Agreement, either party could terminate the lease with one month's notice. The respondents terminated the Lease Agreement vide communication dated 30.07.2022. Again, vide communication dated 17.08.2022, the respondents reiterated the termination of the Lease Agreement and called upon the appellant to vacate the suit property by 31.08.2022. The respondents also asked the appellant to clear the outstanding amount. The appellant, vide communication dated 19.08.2022, refused to vacate the suit property and also refused to pay the tax deducted at source in respect of the rent from April, 2022 to August, 2022. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the Lease Agreement i.e. Suit No. CS SCJ 1474/2022, in which the learned Civil Judge, District South East, Saket Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 28.09.2022, directed the respondents not to evict the appellant without following the due process of law from the suit property till the next date of hearing.

8. The respondents filed a suit for ejectment, possession and mesne profits against the appellant in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi bearing Civil Suit No.921/2022 titled `Mrs. Kavita Sardana & Anr. vs. Mrs. Kanika Mittal'. Summons in the suit was served on the appellant on 29.10.2022, on which date, during the proceedings before the learned Senior Civil Judge in Suit No. CS SCJ 1474/2022, it was observed that since the defendants (respondents herein) had already preferred their legal remedy for eviction before the learned Additional District Judge, there was no compelling reason to continue the interim order and as such the interim order dated 28.09.2022 granted in favour of the appellant in Suit No. CS SCJ 1474/2022 was vacated.

9. Despite service of summons, the