Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Gurmeet Singh Sidana - Appellant
Versus
Ameek Singh Sawhney - Respondent
C.R.P. 10 of 2023
Decided On : 06-12-2023
JUDGMENT
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. - The instant petition under sub-section 1 of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (hereinafter "CPC"), has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
"A. Allow the present revision petition and set aside the Order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, South District, Saket Court in Application filed by the Petitioner under Order XII Rule 6 CPC in the Civil Suit No. 397 of 2022;
B. Allow the Application filed by the Petitioner under Order XII Rule 6 CPC in the Civil Suit No. 397 of 2022 for ejectment of the Respondent and possession of the Petitioner in Suit Property bearing flat bearing no. B-4/118, Ground Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029;
C. Award the costs of the revision petition in favour of the Petitioner:
D. Pass any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice."
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The petitioner Sh. Gurmeet Singh Sidana, is a resident of Australia and has filed the present petition through its constituted attorney i.e., Mr. Sanjay Malhotra (hereinafter "Authorised Representative/AR"), who has been authorized vide the Special Power of Attorney dated 5th November 2021 (hereinafter "SPA"), executed in his favour by the petitioner.
3. The petitioner had filed a Civil Suit bearing no. 397/2022, seeking inter alia a decree of ejectment, mesne profits, arrears of rent and damages against the respondent. The said Suit is pending for adjudication before the learned ADJ-03, Saket District Court, South, New Delhi. The facts leading to the instant petition are as follows:
a. The petitioner i.e., the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court is stated to be the absolute owner of the property admeasuring 297.33 sq. yds., bearing no. B-4/118, including the Basement, Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor, at Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. The petitioner is stated to be the owner of the above said property by virtue of a Relinquishment Deed dated 11th January 2019.
b. It is stated that the respondent i.e., the defendant before the learned Trial Court approached the present petitioner for occupying, on lease, the Ground Floor of property bearing no. B-4/118, comprising four bedrooms with attached bathrooms, kitchen, front and rear balconies, with all the fixtures and fittings, along with a space for two parking lots and a servant residence in the stilt area (hereinafter "suit property").
c. Pursuant to the above, a Lease Deed dated 10th January 2020 (hereinafter "agreement"), was executed between the parties as per which the suit property was transferred to the respondent i.e., the lessee, on lease, for a period of two years i.e., from 10th January 2020 to 9th January 2022.
d. The monthly rent as per the said Lease Deed was fixed at Rs.1,05,000/- including maintenance and the respondent was also obligated to pay a security deposit of Rs.2,10,000/-. As per the said agreement, the monthly rent was payable on or before the first tenth day of each British calendar month. The petitioner handed over the possession of the suit property to the respondent on 10th January 2020.
e. On 28th June 2020, the wife of the respondent sent an email to the petitioner, thereby, requesting him to reduce the monthly rent to Rs.80,000/-, on the ground of then prevailing pandemic i.e., COVID-19. The said request was allowed by the petitioner on the assurance given by the respondent that there shall be no default of monthly rent and/or any other condition mentioned in the agreement. The respondent accordingly paid the above said reduced amount till March 2021.
f. It is stated that the respondent did not adhere to the terms, conditions and rental obligations in accordance to the agreement and owing to such breaches, the petitioner called upon the respondent to pay the outstanding amount of monthly rent and other charges till 10th March 2021 and to vacate the suit pro
Admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC must be clear and unambiguous to justify a judgment without trial; ambiguous denials necessitate a full trial.
For a decree on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the admissions must be clear, unambiguous, and unconditional; evasive denials do not qualify.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the court to pass a preliminary decree based on admissions and the requirement for parties to disclose the pendency of any appeal....
A clear and unambiguous admission by a party can justify a summary judgment under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
The admission by the landlords did not confer tenancy rights only upon the Petitioner, but also upon his mother and siblings. Decreeing the suit in favor of the Petitioner alone would deny the rights....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of clear and unambiguous admissions in passing judgment under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, and the necessity of a full-fledged tri....
The grounds for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC cannot be examined at the stage of defendant's evidence and go into the merits of the suit, which should be decided during the....
A decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC requires clear, unconditional admissions of fact, which were absent in this case.
Admissions in civil suits must be clear and unequivocal; statements from unrelated criminal proceedings do not satisfy this standard for summary judgment under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
