Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 2642

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Gaurang Kanth, J.
Parul Nahar – Appellant
Versus
Pooja Bansal & Anr. – Respondents
RFA 332 of 2022 & CM APPL. 33107 & 34495 of 2022
Decided On : 21-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Mehmood Pracha and Mr. Aayushman Aggarwal, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr. Rishabh Kaushik, Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. C.K. Bhatt and Ms. Vedika, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Attin Shankar Rastogi and Mr. Archit Chauhan, Advocates for R-2.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on admissions made by the tenant in the written statement to grant possession to the landlord, in accordance with Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

Headnote:
Order XII Rule 6 CPC - Possession - [LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP, LEASE TERMINATION] - [Order XII Rule 6 CPC] - The court partly decreed the suit for possession in favor of the landlord based on admissions made by the tenant in the written statement. The tenant admitted the tenancy, rent amount, and the receipt of the lease termination letter, leading to the court's decision to grant possession to the landlord. The court's decision was upheld based on the settled legal position and the absence of illegality or perversity in the judgment.
Fact of the Case:

The suit involved a dispute over possession of a property between the landlord and the tenant, who was the husband of the appellant. The landlord terminated the lease agreement and sought possession of the property. The tenant and the appellant, his wife, contested the suit, alleging collusion and claiming ownership of the property.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the tenant's admissions in the written statement regarding the tenancy and lease termination justified the grant of possession to the landlord. The court rejected the appellant's claims of collusion and ownership, upholding the landlord's right to terminate the lease and seek possession.
Issues: The main issues involved the validity of the lease termination, the tenant's admissions in the written statement, and the appellant's claims of collusion and ownership of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which allows judgment on admissions of fact. The tenant's admissions regarding the tenancy and lease termination provided sufficient grounds for the court to grant possession to the landlord. The court also emphasized the landlord's right to terminate the lease and seek possession, irrespective of the mutual understanding between the parties.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the trial court, granting possession of the property to the landlord. The court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court's decision.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The Appellant (original Defendant No. 2) in the present Appeal is assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 09.06.2022 ("Impugned Judgment") passed by the learned ADJ-07, South East District, Saket Courts in CS No. 210/2020, titled as 'Mrs. Pooja Bansal Vs Soumitra Nahar & Anr.'.

2. Vide the Impugned Judgment, the learned Trial Court was pleased to allow the application filed by Respondent No. 1 (original Plaintiff) under Order XII Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and partly decreed the suit by granting her relief of ejectment/possession in favour of Respondent No. 1 and against the Appellant and Respondent No. 2.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:

3. Respondent No. 2 was the husband of the Appellant. The parties were having a troubled married life. The matrimonial disputes between the parties are pending before various courts in Delhi. Respondent No. 2 got divorce decree on 03.01.2023 and the same is under challenge before this Court in MAT.APP. (F.C.) 36/2023.

4. Respondent No. 1 is the owner/landlord of Flat No. E, Second floor (back side) along with servant quarter on the second floor and along with proportionate, undivided, indivisible and impartible ownership rights in the land measuring 500 sq. yards bearing No. M- 24, situated at Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi-110048 ("Suit Property") by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 30.03.2006.

5. It is the case of Respondent No. 1 that somewhere in December, 2012, Respondent No. 2 (husband) approached her for a rented accommodation. Hence, Respondent No. 1 rented out the Suit Property to Respondent No. 2 by way of lease agreement dated 12.12.2012. The said lease was initially for a period of 11 months at a fixed lease rental of Rs.30,000/- per month, exclusive of all charges like electricity, water, etc. with an interest free security of three months.

6. The lease agreement of the Suit Property was thereafter got renewed on yearly basis from time to time and the last renewal was vide lease agreement dated 25.02.2019, from 01.01.2019 to 30.11.2019.

7. Appellant (wife) was staying in the Suit Property from the year 2013 and Respondent No. 2 (husband) was paying the monthly rent along with all other charges like electricity and water charges.

8. It is the case of Respondent No. 1 that she visited the Suit Property in May, 2019 and September, 2019. On both the occasions, the Suit Property was found to be locked. Further, according to Respondent No. 1, the Suit Property was lying dirty, messy, inhabitable, unattended and not maintained properly in accordance with the lease agreement dated 25.02.2019. In view of the same, vide legal notice dated 17.09.2019, Respondent No. 1 terminated the lease agreement between Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2.

9. Later, Respondent No. 1 was summoned by the District Court with respect to a case for restoration of the electricity connection of the Suit Property. During the said proceedings, it came to the knowledge of Respondent No. 1 that Appellant and Respondent No. 2 entered into a mutual settlement agreement qua the Suit Property before this Court in FAO No. 129/2013. Hence, Respondent No.1 again, vide letter dated 30.10.2019, called upon Respondent No. 2 to vacate the Suit Property on or before 30.11.2019, failing which Respondent No. 2 would be liable to pay the damages @ Rs. 5000/- per day till the vacation of the Suit Property.

10. Further, Respondent No. 1 averred that she was in need of the Suit Property for settling her own son who was of marriageable age. Hence, Respondent No. 1 filed the suit for possession, damages/ mesne profits and cost against Respondent No. 2 (original Defendant No. 1) and the Appellant (original Defendant No. 2).

11. The summons were duly served upon Respondent No. 2 and Appellant. Both of them filed their respective written statements. Both of them admitted the tenancy. The relevant portion of the written statement filed by