IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that a Trial Court can invoke suo motu powers under Order XII Rule 6 CPC without a formal application, especially when the tenancy is residential and admissions are clear.

JUDGMENT :

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.

1. The appellant tenant has assailed order dated 03.08.2024 of the learned Trial Court whereby, after dismissing the application of the appellant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the learned Trial Court invoked suo motu powers under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and passed preliminary decree of restoration of possession of the subject property in favour of the present respondent landlord and after framing issues related to recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits, posted the matter for trial. Having heard learned counsel for appellant and having perused the record, in my considered view it is not a fit case to even issue notice of the appeal to the respondent/landlord.

2. Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for present purposes are as follows. The present respondent being sole and absolute owner of the subject property, which is a ground floor DDA MIG Flat bearing no. AG-1/20A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, agreed to induct the appellant as a tenant in the subject property for residential purposes at a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/-. A rent agreement dated 20.01.2021 was executed between the parties and after expiry of the same with efflux of time, another rent agreement dated 22.03.2022 was executed, stipulating the monthly rent at a rate of Rs. 21,000/-, after expiry whereof with efflux of time, another rent agreement dated 16.11.2022 stipulating the monthly rent at a rate of Rs. 22,000/- was executed between the parties. After expiry of the said rent agreement with efflux of time, the appellant did not vacate the subject property and the respondent landlord came to know that the appellant was using the subject property for commercial purposes. As such, the respondent issued a quit notice, which was duly served on the appellant. As the notice was ignored, the present respondent filed suit against the appellant for recovery of possession of the subject property and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. In the Written Statement, the appellant admitted the relationship of tenancy between the parties, the rate of rent being above the statutory protection and the service of quit notice. But the appellant resisted the suit, pleading that the tenancy was for commercial purposes as parties had orally agreed that the appellant could use the subject property for running his sole proprietorship business of pharmaceutical products for a period of seven years.

3. In the backdrop of above rival pleadings, the learned Trial Court traversing through various judicial precedents flowing from the Supreme Court and this Court found it a fit case to invoke the suo motu powers under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and partly decreed the suit to the extent of recovery of possession of the subject property in favour of the present respondent.

4. Hence the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for appellant contends that it was not a fit case to pass decree for recovery of possession since the learned Trial Court did not have jurisdiction. The challenge to the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court is raised by learned counsel for appellant on the ground that as reflected from documents on record as well as pleadings of the present respondent, the subject property was being used for commercial purposes; and therefore, it is only the designated Commercial Court, which could hear the suit. In this regard, learned counsel for appellant places reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case titled Jagmohan Behl vs. State Bank of Indore, 2017:DHC:5761-DB. Learned counsel for appellant also contends that he was not heard by the learned Trial Court before passing the impugned order. According to learned counsel for appellant, the impugned order could not be passed since there was no formal application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. No other argument has been advanced.

6. To begin with, it is no longer res integra that powers under Order XII Rule 6 CPC can be invoked by the Trial Court even suo motu and without any formal applicat