Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 1448

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Gaurang Kanth, J.
Poonam Kakkar – Appellant
Versus
Vaishali & Anr. – Respondents
RFA 582 of 2022 and CM APPL. 49586 of 2022
Decided On : 09-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Mr. Aman Sahani and Ms. Versha Singh, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr. Pardeep and Mr. Satish Kumar Dabas, Advocates, for the Respondents.

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 seeking a decree of possession against a tenant.

Headnote:
Judgment on admissions - Tenancy Dispute - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 58(e), Order XII Rule 6 CPC - [Ms. Vaishali & Anr. v. Smt. Poonam Kakkar] - [Section 58(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Order XII Rule 6 CPC] - The court examined the relevant law regarding 'Judgment on admissions' and emphasized the need for clear, unambiguous, and unconditional admissions. It held that the discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC should not be exercised unless there is a clear admission that can be acted upon. The court also outlined the parameters for seeking a decree of possession against a tenant, emphasizing the need to establish the jural relationship of landlord and tenant, termination of tenancy, absence of a registered subsisting lease agreement, and failure to hand over possession by the tenant. The court found that the appellant had disputed the execution of the Rent Agreement and the veracity of the signatures, leading to a lack of clear admission. As a result, it set aside the Impugned judgment and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings.
Fact of the Case:

The Respondents claimed ownership of a property and alleged that the Appellant, as a tenant, failed to pay rent and continued to occupy the property after the expiry of the rent agreement. The Respondents sought possession and recovery of outstanding amounts. The Appellant disputed the Rent Agreement and claimed a Security Agreement, denying the payment of rent and asserting the right to occupy the property until the security amount was refunded. The trial court allowed the Respondents' application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, leading to the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant had disputed the execution of the Rent Agreement and the veracity of the signatures, leading to a lack of clear admission. As a result, it set aside the Impugned judgment and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the disputed Rent Agreement, the existence of a Security Agreement, the payment of rent, and the right to occupy the property. The court also considered the application of Order XII Rule 6 CPC and the need for clear admissions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for clear, unambiguous, and unconditional admissions to exercise the discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. It also outlined the parameters for seeking a decree of possession against a tenant, emphasizing the need to establish the jural relationship of landlord and tenant, termination of tenancy, absence of a registered subsisting lease agreement, and failure to hand over possession by the tenant.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Impugned judgment and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings, allowing both parties to lead evidence and emphasizing the need for a trial to decide the matter.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The Appellant in the present Appeal is impugning the judgment dated 04.08.2022 ("Impugned judgment") in CS No. 287/2020 passed by the Additional District Judge-05: South-West District Dwarka, New Delhi titled as `Ms. Vaishali & Anr. v. Smt. Poonam Kakkar'. Vide the Impugned Judgment, the learned Trial Court was pleased to allow the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC filed by the Respondents and a decree of possession was passed in favour of them.

FACTS GERMANE FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:

2. It is the case of the Respondents that Respondent No.2 is the legal and lawful owner of the property i.e. Flat No.265 (two room+ one room set), Second Floor, Janta Flat, Group-1, Hastsal, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "suit property").

3. It is further the case of the Respondents that Respondent No.2 was employed in Air India and due to the nature of the job and his busy schedule, he authorized Respondent No.1 to deal with the suit property for the purpose of giving it on rent and other ancillary activities of maintenance. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 executed the authorization letter in favor of Respondent No.1.

4. Further, it is the Respondents' claim that the Appellant was inducted as a tenant by the Respondents vide a rent agreement dated 09.08.2018 for a period of 11 months from 01.05.2018 to 31.03.2019 at a monthly rent of Rs.9000/- exclusive of electricity and water charges. As per the above mentioned rent agreement, the rent was to be paid in advance on or before 1st day of the English calendar and a security deposit of Rs.9000/- was also to be paid. Pertinently, a penalty of Rs.1000/- per day was to be levied in the event of failure to pay rent on time or vacate the premises on the expiry of the rent agreement.

5. Subsequently, the Appellant failed to pay the monthly rent of the suit property from the month of June 2018 onwards and promised to pay a lump-sum within the next six months, which the Respondents allowed as a humanitarian gesture. However, the Appellant failed to pay the rent and arrears till December 2018 and continued to live in the suit property even after the expiry of the Rent Agreement on 31.03.2019.

6. Respondent No.2 addressed a legal notice dated 16.06.2020 to the Appellant to pay the arrears of rent, penalty, water and electricity bills totaling Rs.6,18,000/-.

7. Thereafter, the Respondents on 13.07.2020, also filed a civil suit being CS No. 287/2020 before the learned Trial Court inter-alia praying for possession of the suit property. The Respondents prayed for recovery of the outstanding rent of Rs.81,000/- along with an interest @18% p.a. (from 01.07.2018 to 30.03.2019). Further, the Respondents also prayed for the recovery of Rs.4,57,000/- towards damages for the unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property from the period 01.04.2019 to 30.06.2020. Furthermore, the Respondents prayed for recovery of Rs.80,000/- towards arrears of electricity and water bill. Lastly, they prayed for future damages/mesne profits of Rs.30,000/- per month or such further amounts commensurate to the market rate of similarly situated properties to be paid till the actual handling of the suit property.

8. The Respondents in the meantime on 13.07.2020, also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC in CS No. 287/2020, praying for directing the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs.81,000/- as outstanding amount towards the rent for the period from 01.07.2018 to 31.03.2019 along with interest @18% p.a. Further, it was also prayed for directing to deposit a sum of Rs.4,57,000/- along with an interest @18% p.a. towards damages/mesne profits from the period 01.04.2019 to 30.06.2020 till the peaceful possession of the suit property is granted. Furthermore, a direction was also sought to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- along with an interest @18% p.a. as pending electricity and water charges. The Appellant filed a reply dated 21.09.2020 to the above-s