In tenancy disputes, the admissibility of evidence, the application of procedural rules such as Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, and the need for exceptional circumstances for extension of time for filing written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC are crucial legal principles.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the impugned judgment, order and decree dated 23rd May, 2023 passed by the Ld. ADJ-02, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Suit No.73/2022 titled as "Jai Singh v. Shokeen Khan". The said suit was filed for possession, permanent and mandatory injunction, damages and mesne profits by the respondent-plaintiff who claimed to the absolute owner of the property bearing No. D-34, Main Road, Kanti Nagar, Delhi- 110051. The appellant-defendant was a tenant in half portion of the basement of the property but when the plaintiff came to know about the misuse of the property for commercial purposes, as well as stoppage of the payment of monthly rent of Rs.30,000/- per month, he served a legal notice on 04th December, 2021 for vacating the suit property. Since the respondent-plaintiff refused to vacate, said suit was filed. The suit was decreed by the Ld. Trial Court by allowing the application under Order VIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the respondent-plaintiff.

The Suit

2. As noted above, the plaintiff claimed to be the owner of said suit property by virtue of a relinquishment deed dated 20th May, 2010. The rent agreement on the basis of which the defendant was given possession was dated 01st October, 2020, with the possession being given on 29th September, 2020 on monthly rent of Rs.30,000/- per month. When the plaintiff came to know about the misuse of the suit property for commercial purposes he requested the defendant to vacate the property. The defendant had also ceased paying the monthly rent since April, 2021. The defendant was challaned by the MCD for violating environmental laws which the plaintiff came to know about in the month of December, 2021. Yet again the plaintiff requested him to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property. He also came to know that the defendant had damaged the suit property and was causing nuisance to the neighbours by depositing e-waste in the passage which led to an adjacent temple. The defendant extended threats to the plaintiff that he would get the property sealed.

3. Legal notice was served on 04th December, 2021. A reply was sent by the defendant dated 09th December, 2021. The defendant filed a suit bearing No.1271/2021 which is pending in the Court of the Ld. Civil Judge, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts. An application under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC was filed by the plaintiff on the basis that the defendant had been duly served on 31st March, 2022 but did not file his written statement till 18th October, 2022. There was a delay of 143 days.

The Impugned Judgment

4. The Ld. Trial Court allowed the application under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC filed by the plaintiff not finding any merit in the application for condonation of delay for 143 days, as sought by the defendant for filing the written statement. The Ld. Trial Court observed that the defendant was served on 31st March, 2022, but did not turn up till 03rd September, 2022, when he was given an opportunity to file defence within two weeks. The defendant did not avail the opportunity nor deposited costs, and instead moved an application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and sought an extension. Noting that the provision under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC was directory and not mandatory, per various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Ld. Trial Court, however, noted that the defendant would have to show that the delay was not on account of his negligence and inaction and was bona fide.

5. Traversing the law for Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, it was highlighted that in the event even when a fact stated in the plaint is treated to be admitted, a judgment can possibly be passed in favour of the plaintiff without requiring him to prove any facts. The Court can be satisfied that there was no fact which needed to be proved on account of the deemed admission. However, if the plaint itself indicated that there were disputes in ques