The main legal point established is that admissions by a party can determine the outcome of a case, and dilatory tactics may lead to reduced costs and dismissal of claims.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. (Oral)

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

1. The Appellant/Defendant in the present Appeal is impugning the judgment dated 13.03.2023 ("Impugned judgment") in CS DJ No.146/2021 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge-02, South, Saket Courts Campus, New Delhi titled as `Ms. Decalcap Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Jasveer Lal Gour'. Vide the Impugned Judgment, the learned Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the Counter Claim filed by the Appellant/Defendant and allowed the Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent and decree of possession was passed in favour of the Plaintiff.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant states at the outset that he has filed complete Trial Court Record in accordance with the High Court Rules. The Appellant also filed a certificate in this regard. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appeal may be heard today itself and no date for hearing of the appeal be fixed as contemplated by sub-Rule 1 of Rule 11 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure.

THE FACTS GERMANE FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION ARE AS FOLLOWS:

3. It is the case of the Plaintiff/Respondent that the Defendant was inducted as a tenant in respect of property bearing No. N-43, Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062 (herein referred to as the "Suit Property") vide lease deed dated 25.09.2020. Pertinently, the lease was fixed for a period of 11 months commencing from 01.11.2020 till 30.09.2021, on an initial monthly rent of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand Only), for the initial period from November 2020 till March 2021 and thereafter for the remaining period, on a monthly rent of Rs.1,20,000 (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand Only). Further, a security deposit amounting to Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) was also supposed to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff in respect of the Suit property.

4. As per the lease deed dated 25.09.2020, the Defendant was inter-alia solely responsible for running the business and for the procurement of all the requisite licenses, permissions, sanctions, approvals etc., with regard to running the Bed & Breakfast. It is further the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant has explicitly agreed to observe/abide by all the rules and regulations.

5. Further, the Defendant stopped the payment of the lease rent from December, 2020 without any explanation for the same. It is further the claim of the Plaintiff that out of the total security deposit of Rs.3,00,000/-, the Defendant has only paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) is yet to be paid.

6. Further, the Plaintiff claims that as the Defendant manifestly failed to pay the rent as well the security amount for the suit property, the Plaintiff resultantly addressed a notice dated 08.01.2021, terminating the lease deed for the non-payment of rent. The Defendant was intimated that as per the lease deed, a representative will come and take over the possession of the suit property to which the Defendant agreed. However, he kept dilly dallying the possession on one pretext or the other, and on one such situation he even cleverly and malafidely called the local police and thereafter also filed a police complaint dated 08.01.2021. However, the police took no action against the Plaintiff as there was no trespassing and even requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount.

7. It is further the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant inspite of several reminders neither cleared the outstanding amount nor vacated the suit property. On 17.01.2021, the Defendant in order to win the trust of the Plaintiff, issued a cheque bearing No. 549323 of Rs.20,000/- in favor of the Plaintiff and promised to vacate the suit property. However, the Defendant again did not vacate the suit property and it was also found out that the above-mentioned cheque was dishonored vide return memo