$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 25^th April, 2023 + RFA 187/2023 & CM APPL. 11197/2023 M/S DIVINE MESSENGERS ..... Appellant Through: Mr. B.N. Sharma, Advocate.

versus DR PRERNA DIWAN ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vikas Yadav, Advocate with Respondent-in-person.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. Present appeal has been filed assailing the impugned judgment/decree dated 09.11.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court decreeing the suit of the Respondent herein for possession of the suit property as also dismissing the application of the Appellant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the same judgment. Appellant herein was the Defendant before the Trial Court and Respondent was the Plaintiff and parties are referred to by their litigating status before the Trial Court, hereinafter.

2. Facts necessary for adjudication of the appeal are in a narrow compass and are captured as follows:

(a). Plaintiff filed a suit for possession, arrears of rent and damages, claiming to be the lawful owner of property bearing Unit No.206, 2^nd Floor, Krishna Plaza, Plot No.1, Sector-11, Pocket-4, Dwarka, New Delhi, purchased by the Plaintiff vide Sale Deed dated 20.05.2014.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed by:KAMAL RFA 187/2023 Page 1 of 18 KUMAR (b). Plaintiff inducted the Defendant as a tenant and a Lease Agreement dated 17.07.2017 was executed between the parties for a period of two years and the Agreement was registered vide registration No. 5760 on 18.07.2017 with the Office of Sub-Registrar-IX, New Delhi. The monthly rent agreed between the parties was Rs.19,500/- for the first year and Rs.21,450/- for the second year.

(c). After expiry of the lease of the tenanted premises, Plaintiff asked the Defendant repeatedly to vacate the premises and also sent a legal notice dated 07.08.2019 terminating the tenancy. However, when the Defendant refused to vacate the premises and even stopped paying the rent, Plaintiff filed the suit from which the present appeal arises.

(d). Upon service of summons, Defendant filed the written statement on 03.09.2020 and thereafter, the Plaintiff filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC on 18.11.2021 seeking decree on admission. Thereafter, on 05.05.2022, an application was filed by the Defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment to the written statement along with reply to the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court dismissed Defendant’s application and allowed the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC decreeing the suit for possession.

3. Assailing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, learned counsel for the Defendant argued that there were no clear or unequivocal admissions by the Defendant and the Trial Court thus erred in decreeing the suit on an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. It is further submitted that the suit property was leased out to the Defendant in the year 2015 and the lease was renewed from time to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed by:KAMAL RFA 187/2023 Page 2 of 18 KUMAR time. Defendant deposited security of Rs.3 lakhs with the Plaintiff for the initial lease and the successive renewals, which was to be refunded at the end of the lease periods, however, Plaintiff failed to do the needful. The next argument on behalf of the Defendant is that Defendant is a Partnership Firm of which her husband and she are partners and despite having knowledge of this fact, Plaintiff did not implead the partner, namely, Shri Acharya V. Shastri as party to the suit. The only other argument pressed on behalf of the Defendant by the learned counsel is that when the premises was taken on lease by the Defendant, it was not being used for commercial purpose but was run as a hotel with a kitchen and a lot of renovation work was done by the Defendant leading to an investment of over Rs.3 lakhs, but till date money has not been reimbursed by the Plaintiff.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Plai