Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Rajan Bhandari - Appellant
Versus
Shriniwas Verma - Respondent
CM(M) No. 37 of 2020
Decided On : 05-01-2021
The court upheld that mere admissions in a written statement confirming a tenant-landlord relationship and non-payment of rent justified an eviction decree under procedural rules.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Order 12 Rule 6 - Decree of possession - Petitioner challenged the decree based on admissions in the Written Statement regarding tenant-landlord relationship, non-payment of rent, and termination of tenancy - The Trial Court affirmed the relationship of tenant and landlord, concluding the petitioners' admissions supported an order of eviction. (Paras 11, 31, 34)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners rented the first floor of the property for two months starting August 2017 at Rs. 4,000 per month. They failed to pay rent post the initial months and subsequently were involved in disputes with the respondent.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court found that the petitioners' admissions confirmed their status as tenants, justifying the Decree of Possession. The respondent proved a landlord-tenant relationship, and there was no lease deed in place.
Issues: Whether there existed a tenant-landlord relationship and whether the Trial Court was justified in passing an eviction order based on petitioners' admissions.
Ratio Decidendi: The decreeing court held that unequivocal admissions in the Written Statement clearly established a tenant-landlord relationship and a failure to pay rent justified the eviction. The absence of a lease deed highlighted the month-to-month tenancy.
Result: Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- due to delayed execution and non-compliance with prior court directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner’s tenancy and non-payment of rent established. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. court's reliance on admissions for eviction order. (Para 11 , 12 , 23 , 30 , 31 , 33) |
| 3. court dismisses petition due to non-compliance. (Para 14 , 15 , 34) |
| 4. counterclaims and allegations of illegal eviction by the petitioner. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 22) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. Petitioner impugns judgement dated 30.09.2019 whereby decree of possession has been passed against the petitioner under order 12 rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure. Trial Court in the impugned order has held that in the Written Statement there are categorical admissions particularly in paragraphs 3(a) and (b) of the Written Statement.
2. Respondent has filed the subject Suit for Possession, Permanent Injunction and Damages against the Petitioners contending that respondent is the owner of built-up property bearing number 367-A-368 village Pana Udyan, Narela, Delhi consisting of ground floor and first floor.
3. It is contended in the plaint that the Petitioners approached the Respondent in the month of July 2017 and requested for grant of short period tenancy for two months. Since, the first floor of the property was lying vacant and there was time of four-five months in the shifting of the respondent's son to the said property, Respondent agreed to give the portion of the suit property on the First Floor consisting of a two rooms set on rent for a short period of two months to the petitioner, with effect from August 2017 at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month excluding all charges.
4. It is contended that the petitioner shifted in the month of August 2017 on the first floor and started living therein. Respondent asked petitioner No. 1 to execute the Rent Agreement but the same was avoided by the petitioners and they assured that since they wanted the premises only for two to three months Respondent shouldn't worry.
5. It is contended that petitioners only paid rent for two months vide cheques both for the sum of Rs.4,000/- each. Petitioners thereafter neither vacated the premises nor paid the rent and other charges for the rest of the months. A cheque was given in the month of December 2017 for Rs.8,000/- but the same was dishonoured.
6. It is contended that on account of non-payment of rent and electricity charges, electricity to the portion of the petitioner got disconnected.
7. It is contended that Petitioners would quarrel with the respondent and even caused injury to the respondent for which an MLC was recorded on 29.04.2018 and a case was registered against the petitioners.
8. It is contended that even though petitioners did not pay the amount towards electricity charges, the electricity was restored consequent to directions issued by this court.
9. It is contended that since petitioners have neither paid the rent nor other charges, respondent has been constrained to file the subject Suit for Possession, Recovery of rent/damages and Permanent Injunction.
10. Trial court in the impugned order has reproduced the admissions made in paragraphs 3(a) and (b) of the Written Statement. Paragraphs 3(a) and (b) of the written statement read as under:
"a) That the defendants are staying in the suit property along with children since 30.09.2018 as a tenants.
b) At the time when the defendants took the property on rent from the plaintiff, the defendant paid an advance rent of Rs.4000/- through cheque dated 19.09.2018 and thereafter also paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- as refundable security deposit in cash, however, despite time and again approaching the plaintiff to enter into a written lease agreement, the plaintiff kept dillydallying and has not executed an agreement in writing till date. In fact, the plaintiff had further received Rs.4000/- (300/- cash and 3700/- by way of cheque) amounts from the defendant No. 1 in favour of Mr Binay Jodi for execute regd. Rentagreement, who is well-known of plaintiff. Copy of the passbook of
