The trial court can pass a decree under Order XII Rule 6 on the basis of clear admissions without requiring a trial, even if the defense has been struck off.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 96 of the CPC against the judgment dated December 20, 2019 (`impugned judgment', for short) passed in a Civil Suit being CS No. 616415/2016 (`Suit', for short). This Suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking a Decree of Possession, Recovery of Arrears of rent/damages and Permanent Injunction against the appellant/defendant in respect of premises being Room No. 29, Third Floor of property No. 1663-66, Didwani Motor Market, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, ad-measuring 180 Sq. Ft. (`Suit Property', for short), being the owner of the same.

2. The facts, in brief, as noted from the impugned judgment, plaint, LCR, lease agreement are, that the respondent/plaintiff let out the Suit Property to the defendant/appellant since 2005 and lastly it was extended vide lease agreement dated June 02, 2014 as executed between the parties (`Lease Agreement', for short) for a monthly rent of Rs.3744/- payable by the defendant. As per the Lease Agreement, inter-alia, (i) the tenancy was liable to be terminated by way of service of one month's notice by either of the parties; (ii) plaintiff had received a sum of Rs.12000/- as security, liable to refunded after the expiry of tenancy period; and (iii) in the event of determination of tenancy, as aforesaid, or by afflux of time the defendant does not vacate the property (that is the room in question) he was saddled with a liability to pay a penalty of Rs.1000 (Rupees one thousand only) per day from the date of determination of his tenancy till he hands over possession thereof to the plaintiff.

3. Owing to defaults in payment of rent with effect from May 2014 and the unruly behaviour of the appellant/defendant on demands made for payment of arrears of rent, the plaintiff served a legal notice on September 02, 2014 terminating the tenancy of the appellant/defendant with effect from October 03, 2014 and also calling upon the appellant/defendant to pay rent within a period of 15 days. Since the appellant/defendant failed to hand over the actual vacant and peaceful possession of the Suit Property, the respondent/plaintiff filed the Suit.

4. Even though the defendant had put in appearance in pursuance of the Trial Court's summons, he failed to file the written statement and finally defence was struck of vide order of the Trial Court dated August 12, 2015. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:

"As the stipulated period of 90 days has already been expired since the date of appearance of the defendant, caused on 08.12.2014 and the WS has not been filed on behalf of defendant, the right to file WS by the defendant is struck of. The application under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC stands disposed of in view of the above orders.

Since morning, none has appeared for the defendant despite repeated calls, the defendant is proceeded ex parte.

The list of witnesses and the affidavit-in-evidence of PWs be filed by the plaintiff.

Be put up for PE (ex-parte) for 18.02.2016.

Be put up with connected matter bearing CS No. 319/2014. "

5. Thereafter, appellant/defendant moved an application under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC and with the said application appellant/defendant also filed his written statement. Subsequently, the respondent/plaintiff moved two applications under Order XII Rule 6 and Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC.

6. The Trial Court vide order dated April 05, 2017, disposed of the application