Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 16161
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J
VED PRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
NEERAJ SAXENA – Respondent
C.R.P.-124/2022
Clear, unequivocal admissions are required for summary judgment under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC; disputed evidence cannot be relied upon.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115 - Civil Suit CS No. 249/2021 - Revision petition against dismissal of application under Order XII Rule 6 for judgment on admissions - Petitioner alleged non-payment of rent and sought eviction - Respondent denied landlord-tenant relationship and authenticity of evidence - Court found no clear admissions to justify summary judgment. (Paras 1, 2, 24, 31, 52)
(B) Admissions - The court emphasized that admissions must be clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous for a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 - Disputed evidence cannot form the basis for such admissions. (Paras 31, 51)
(C) Discretion of Court - The court reiterated that the power under Order XII Rule 6 is discretionary and should not be exercised if material facts are in dispute. (Paras 36, 48)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner entered into a rent agreement with the respondent for a shop, but the respondent stopped paying rent and disputed the landlord-tenant relationship, leading to the eviction suit. The petitioner sought a summary judgment based on alleged admissions in the written statement and a phone conversation transcript.
Findings of Court:
The learned Trial Court found no clear admissions by the respondent and dismissed the application under Order XII Rule 6, stating that the matter required a full trial.
Issues: The main issues were whether the respondent made clear admissions regarding the landlord-tenant relationship and whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application under Order XII Rule 6.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondent's denials created ambiguity, and the evidence presented was disputed, thus not meeting the criteria for summary judgment under Order XII Rule 6.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)
1. The instant civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 26th February, 2022, passed by learned ADJ, Tis Hazari Court (Central), Delhi, in Civil Suit bearing CS No. 249/2021 titled "Ved Prakash v. Neeraj Saxena".
2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the instant revision petition are as follows:
a. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner namely Mr. Ved Prakash (hereinafter “plaintiff/landlord”) that he entered into a rent agreement registered on 7th February, 2018, in the office of Sub-Registrar-I, New Delhi with Mr. Neeraj Saxena (hereinafter “respondent/defendant/tenant”) for the lease of Shop bearing no. 2807, Ground Floor, measuring 5.37 Sq. Mt. situated in Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter “subject property”) for a period of 36 months. The said Agreement contained various terms and conditions, which were mutually agreed for leasing out the subject property.
b. It has been alleged by the petitioner that due to certain disputes regarding the subject property, the respondent stopped paying the rent to the plaintiff since March, 2020, upon which, the plaintiff served an eviction and termination notice dated 13th October, 2020 to the respondent, thereby terminating the said tenancy created by virtue of a Rent Agreement. However, the respondent neither handed over the possession of the subject property, nor did he pay the arrears of rent.
c. Pursuant to the above, the petitioner filed a civil suit bearing CS No. 249/2021 seeking eviction from the subject property and recovery of arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits along with further damages against the respondent.
d. Thereafter, the respondent filed his written statement in response to which the petitioner filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC seeking judgment on admissions alleged to be made in the written statement and in the phone conversation between the parties (produced in the form of a transcript).
e. The learned Trial Court adjudicated the aforesaid application and passed the impugned order dated 26th February 2022, dismissing the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC filed by the petitioner.
f. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the petitioner has filed the instant civil revision petition seeking setting aside of the same.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in a proper manner and passed the impugned order without applying the judicial mind.
4. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the admission of the respondent with regard to the rent agreement which is a registered document and the respondent had executed the same with the petitioner in order to occupy the subject property as a tenant.
5. It is submitted that it is a well-established principle, reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in a series of judgments, that for a decree to be passed under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, the admissions need not be explicit or specific but even constructive admissions, which may be deduced from vague and evasive denials in the written statement, are sufficient.
6. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court completely ignored the rent agreement wherein the recitals clearly show that the petitioner is the owner of the subject property which was given to the respondent on lease. It is contended that the respondent himself admits the aforesaid position of the parties and thus, the respondent cannot seek a completely irrelevant plea, and justify his stand contrary to the registered document.
7. It is submitted that Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC clearly states that a judgment on admission can be passed by the Court at any stage wherein admissions of fact have been
