Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Rimi Khanuja - Appellant
Versus
S.P. Mehra - Respondent
RFA 631 of 2022
Decided On : 08-12-2022
Order 12 Rule 6 CPC allows for judgment on admissions made by the parties in a suit. The court analyzed the scope and interpretation of this provision, as well as the requirements for a suit for possession/ejectment by a landlord against a tenant. The court also referred to the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in relation to the termination of the tenancy and the notice requirements. The court's analysis focused on the admissions made by the appellant and their implications for the suit for possession.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, who was the defendant in a civil suit, challenged the partial decree passed by the trial court in favor of the plaintiffs for possession of the suit premises. The suit was based on a landlord-tenant relationship, and the appellant had failed to pay the outstanding rent and hand over possession. The trial court passed the decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, which allows for judgment on admissions. The appellant argued that there were no clear admissions regarding the tenancy, but the court held that the admissions made by the appellant were unequivocal and unambiguous, entitling the plaintiffs to the decree. The court also noted that the lease had expired and the appellant's continued possession did not amount to renewal of the tenancy. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was given two months to vacate the premises on payment of complete rent for that period.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, which allows for judgment on admissions, and the requirements for a suit for possession/ejectment by a landlord against a tenant. The court referred to relevant case law and held that the admissions made by the appellant were clear and sufficient to warrant a partial decree in favor of the plaintiffs. The court also considered the expiration of the lease and held that the appellant's continued possession did not amount to renewal of the tenancy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that clear and unambiguous admissions by the defendant in a suit for possession can warrant a judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The court also held that the expiration of a lease by efflux of time does not amount to renewal of the tenancy.
Result: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the impugned order of the trial court. The appellant was given two months to vacate the premises on payment of complete rent for that period.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. (ORAL)
CAVEAT 438/2022
1. Since learned counsel for the Caveator has entered appearance, caveat stands discharged.
C.M. APPL. 53169/2022 (Exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
3. Application stands disposed of.
RFA 631/2022 & C.M. APPL. 53168/2022 (Stay)
4. Present Regular First Appeal is preferred by the Appellant assailing the partial decree dated 14.10.2022, passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit being CS DJ 170/2021, whereby the suit has been decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs before the Trial Court with respect to possession, on an application filed by the Plaintiffs under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. Appellant herein was the Defendant before the Trial Court and Respondents were the Plaintiffs and are being referred to by their litigating status before this Court for the sake of convenience.
5. Facts of the present case are in a narrow compass and as encapsulated in the plaint are as under:
a. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for termination, possession, eviction, arrears of rent, etc. before the Trial Court claiming to be the absolute owner of entire Third Floor with complete terrace rights of the suit property bearing no. D-20, Greater Kailash Enclave-I, New Delhi.
b. The suit was premised on a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The case of Respondent No. 1 was that Appellant had approached him in the year 2018 for taking on lease the suit premises for residential purposes on the terms and conditions of payment of rent @ Rs. 49,500/- per month with maintenance charges and hire charges for Fittings and Fixtures as per the Registered Lease Deed drawn up between the parties.
c. Lease Deed was executed on 20.06.2018 and the suit premises was leased to the Appellant. It was agreed under Article 1.1 of the Lease Deed that the period of the Lease Deed shall be three years commencing from 15.06.2018 and ending on 14.06.2021, extendable by one year, if mutually agreed between the parties. Under Article 2.1 a monthly rent of Rs. 49,500/- was fixed, payable on or before 15th day of every month. Interest @ 18% per annum was payable for delay in paying the rent under the Lease Deed. A sum of Rs. 1,48,500/- was to be paid by the Appellant to Respondent No. 1 as interest free security deposit, refundable on the Appellant handing over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises.
d. Appellant complied with the agreed payments under the Agreement till 16.08.2019 albeit certain cheques even for this period were dishonored by the bank on account of `insufficient funds.' Respondents, therefore, served upon the Appellant legal notice dated 20.12.2019, seeking payment of outstanding rental dues, however, Appellant neither paid the outstanding rent nor replied to the notice. This was followed by a reminder notice dated 23.06.2020, seeking the payment of the dues and/or handing over the possession of the suit premises. Vide notice dated 23.06.2020, Respondent No. 1 also terminated the Lease Deed with effect from 16.09.2019 as the conduct of the Appellant was contrary to the terms of the Lease Deed.
e. For the first time a reply was sent by the Appellant on 11.11.2020 raising false contentions, which were duly rebutted by the Respondents. When the Appellant failed to give the peaceful possession of the suit premises, Respondents filed the suit, from which the present appeal arises.
6. Upon service of summons, learned counsel for the Appellant appeared before the Trial Court and sought time to file the memo of appearance, but failed to do so. An application was filed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC by the Respondents to strike out the defence of the Appellant. Vide order dated 07.01.2022, the Trial Court noting that more than 6 months had elapsed from the date of appearance on behalf of the Appellant, struck off the defence under Order VIII Rule 2(1) CPC. Respondents filed the evidence by way of affidavit and since the Appellant did not appear on 05.03.2022, the Trial Court proceeded
Clear and unambiguous admissions by the defendant in a suit for possession can warrant a judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The expiration of a lease by efflux of time does not amount t....
Landlord can obtain possession of premises upon clear admissions about tenancy relations and formal lease termination, regardless of tenant's claims of extensions based on rent acceptance.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear, unambiguous, and unconditional admissions to exercise the discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, and the parameters for ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of clear and unequivocal admissions in pleadings, the application of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and th....
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
