A tenant's admission of rental status and non-payment establishes grounds for possession under CPC, irrespective of claims regarding security deposit.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)--The present regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter, CPC) seeks to assail the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2022 passed by the Ld. ADJ-04, South West District, Dwarka Courts in CS No. 194/2021. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has decreed the respondent/plaintiff's suit for possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC after taking into account the appellant/defendant's statement under Order 10 CPC, wherein she had clearly admitted that she was a tenant in the suit property.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as their original position before the learned Trial Court.

3. The common case of the parties is that the suit property was let out by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant vide rent agreement dated 11.11.2019; the terms whereof stipulated that the monthly rent of the suit property would be Rs.12,500/- excluding water and electricity charges and the tenancy would be for a period of 11 months w.e.f., 10.11.2019 to 09.10.2020. While it is the plaintiff's case that the defendant paid the rent only till February, 2020 and thereafter expressed her inability to pay the same on account of financial difficulties being faced by her due to the pandemic of Covid-19, it is the defendant's case that the rent was paid till February, 2021. Upon expiry of the tenancy period of 11 months, the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the suit property and pay the arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.03.2020, which she failed to do so, leading to the filing of the suit for possession, arrears of rent and permanent injunction by the plaintiff.

4. Before the learned Trial Court, the suit was defended by the defendant by filing a written statement wherein she not only denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property but also took a plea that the suit for possession was not maintainable as the suit property was an agricultural land owned by the Gram Sabha. A further plea was taken by the defendant that since the rent agreement dated 11.11.2019 was an unregistered document, no reliance could have been placed on the same by the learned Trial Court.

5. In the light of this stand taken by the defendant, the learned Trial Court deemed it appropriate to examine her under Order 10 CPC wherein she admitted that she was a tenant in the suit property and claimed that she had paid rent upto March, 2021. She further stated that while taking the suit property on rent, she had paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash to the plaintiff as security but did not have any receipt of the said payment.

6. After taking into consideration the admission made by the defendant of her being a tenant in the suit property owned by the plaintiff, the learned Trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit for possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, while adjourning the matter for determination of payment of mesne profits, if any. The relevant extracts of the impugned judgment read as under-

"The defence of defendant was struck of 24.11.2021 but thereafter written statement has been filed before the next date of 19.01.2022 vide attested affidavit dated 17.01.2022. An application U/s 5 of Limitation Act along with review application to review the order dated 24.11.2021 is on record as filed on 22.02.2022. The applications are straightaway argued.

Keeping in view the contents mentioned therein, the application is allowed subject to cost of Rs.2000/- payable to plaintiff and WS is taken on record.

The defendant is examined U/o 10 CPC whereby she has admitted the tenancy, the rate of rent and the rent agreement executed be