$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA 22/2023 MANJOOR ALAM .....Appellant Through: Mr. Shivang Rawat, Advocate.

versus SABIR QURESHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Payal Jain and Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 02.12.2025 By way of the present second appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (‘CPC’), the appellant impugns judgment/order dated 03.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge - 08, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in appeal bearing RCA DJ No.27/2022 whereby the respondent’s appeal against judgment and decree dated 04.03.2022 passed by the learned JSCC/ASCJ/GJ (West) in suit bearing No. 8181/2016 has been allowed. The appellant has also challenged judgment dated 03.09.2022 insofar as it dismisses a miscellaneous application bearing No.29553/2016 filed by the respondent under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’).

2. The court has heard Mr. Shivang Rawat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (plaintiff) as well as Ms. Payal Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (defendant).

3. In this backdrop, Mr. Rawat has drawn attention to the proposed questions of law set-out in para-3 of the memo of appeal. The proposed questions of law are as follows:

“1. Whether the judgement passed in a civil suit and order passed in application under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be challenged in same appeal under section

96readwithOrder XLIof theCodeof Civil Procedure,1908?

2. Whether the defence raised in written statement can be considered in the favour after (sic) the Defendant after the defence is struckoff?

3. Whether the court can decree the suit under Order 12 rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 after the landlord and tenant relationship is admitted and the amount of rent in proved in chief andcross examination?

4. Whether the plea of section 50 of the DRC Act can be raised after the Defendant’s defence is struck off in the absence of anydocumentaryevidenceor oral evidence?

5. Whether the appeal against dismissal of the application under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 can be filed under section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

6. Whether the Appellant court can set aside passed the order passed under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973without givinganyreasons?”

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the course of his cross-examination on 22.01.2021, the appellant has said that the rate of rent of the suit property was Rs.5,000/- per month. In this behalf, Mr. Rawat has drawn attention to the following statement that has come to be recorded in the course of cross-examination of the appellant before the learned trial court:

“It is incorrect to say that the property was givenon rent @

Rs.3,000/-per month.Vol.Therent was Rs.5,000/-per month.”

5. Counsel submits, that the aforesaid statement amounts to the respondent having admitted that the rate of rent of the suit property was Rs.5,000/- per month. It is argued that since the landlord-tenant relationship stood admitted and the rate of rent was also admitted as being Rs. 5,000/- per month, the learned trial court was correct in decreeing the appellant’s suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and the learned first appellate court committed error in overturning that judgment.

6. Clearly, the appellant’s submission referred to above, proceeds on a complete misunderstanding and misconstruction of what has come to be recorded in the course of the appellant’s own cross-examination before the learned trial court. The rate of rent at Rs. 5000/- per month has come to be recorded as what was volunteered by the appellant himself; and not as a suggestion put to the appellant on behalf of the respondent. Such a volunteered statement made by the appellant himself, cannot possibly be construed as an admission on the part of the respondent.

7. Furthermore,