IMPORTANT POINT
Order XII Rule 6 CPC is an enabling conferring discretion on the Court in delivering a quick judgment on admission and to the extent of the claim admitted by one of the parties of his opponent’s claim.

Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XII Rule 6 – Enabling provision conferring discretionary power for delivering quick judgment on admission – Appellant admitting tenant-landlord relationship for the leases – Resisting eviction on ground of agreement to sale and payment of advance on consideration money – Also filing a suit for specific performance – Decree for eviction could not be passed on mere admission of tenant-landlord relationship. (Para 9)
       Facts of the case:
       Respondent-landlord is the owner of the disputed premises which is a built up area of entire second floor with terrace/roof of the property bearing No.R-849 situated at New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi admeasuring 200 sq. yards.
       The appellant-tenant contended that the respondent-landlord entered into a registered agreement for lease at a monthly rent of Rs.37,500/-for a period of twenty two months i.e. from 15.03.2008 to 14.01.2010. After the expiry of first lease, another registered lease was entered into between the parties for two years i.e. from 15.01.2010 to 14.01.2012 on monthly rent which was fixed at Rs.44,000/-. According to the appellant, during the subsistence of the second lease, as the respondent-landlord was in financial crisis, the respondent-landlord and the appellant-tenant entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the same tenancy premises for an amount of Rs.1.56 crores.
       The appellant-tenant advanced a sum of Rs.82.50 lakhs vide six payments receipts for which were issued by the respondent. Agreement of sale was executed between the parties on 19.08.2011.
       As the defendant-tenant was not vacating the premises despite notice u/s 106 of TP act, the respondent-landlord filed a suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits and injunction. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was filed by the respondent-landlord which was allowed directing the appellant-tenant to vacate and handover physical possession of the suit premises to the respondent-landlord.
       The appellant-tenant preferred application in the High Court.
       On the date of preliminary hearing, 24.10.2014, the learned counsel for the appellant-tenant submitted that the “appeal is not pressed on merits and he prays for grant of time to vacate the suit premises”. On 27.10.2014, the appellant-tenant changed his counsel and requested that the appeal may be heard and sought for an adjournment. The Single Judge declined the request for adjournment and disposed of the appeal observing that notice was issued to the respondent-landlord limited only to the point of grant of time to vacate the premises. Review Petition was dismissed.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
       Result: Appeal allowed partly.

Judgment

R. Banumathi, J.

Leave granted.

2. Challenge in these appeals is the correctness of the orders dated 16.10.2014 and 27.10.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi in RFA No.505/2014, whereby the High Court disposed of the appeal observing that the appellant having not pressed the appeal and by changing their counsel cannot be allowed to plead for adjournment to argue the appeal. Review Petition No.499/2014 also came to be dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 19.11.2014 which is also under challenge in these appeals.

3. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as under:-

Respondent-landlord is the owner of the disputed premises which is a built up area of entire second floor with terrace/roof of the property bearing No.R-849 situated at New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi admeasuring 200 sq. yards. The appellant-tenant contended that the respondent-landlord entered into a registered agreement for lease at a monthly rent of Rs.37,500/-for a period of twenty two months i.e. from 15.03.2008 to 14.01.2010. After the expiry of first lease, another registered lease was entered into between the parties for two years i.e. from 15.01.2010 to 14.01.2012 on monthly rent which was fixed at Rs.44,000/-. According to the appellant, during the subsistence of the second lease, as the respondent-landlord was in financial crisis, the respondent-landlord and the appellant-tenant entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the same tenancy premises for an amount of Rs.1.56 crores. The appellant-tenant is said to have advanced a sum of Rs.82.50 lakhs vide six payments viz.:-

Rs.15,00,000/-on 16.01.2010;

Rs.12,50,000/-on 24.04.2010;

Rs.18,00,000/-on 15.09.2010;

Rs.7,00,000/-on 01.11.2010;

Rs.15,00,000/-on 12.02.2011 and

Rs.15,00,000/-on 19.08.2011

For the above payments the respondent-landlord is said to have issued six receipts acknowledging the receipts of money. Agreement of sale was executed between the parties on 19.08.2011.

4. The respondent-landlord alleges that under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the lease, he sent a legal notice through speed post on 26.12.2011; however, the appellant-tenant denied having received any such notice. As the defendant-tenant was not vacating the premises, the respondent-landlord filed a Suit No.256/13 for recovery of possession, mesne profits and injunction in the Court of Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was filed by the respondent-landlord and the trial court vide its order dated 25.08.2014 allowed the said application and directed the appellant-tenant to vacate and handover physical possession of the suit premises to the respondent-landlord.

5. Aggrieved by the Order, the appellant-tenant preferred RFA No.505/2014 in the High Court of Delhi. As per the order of the High Court, on the date of preliminary hearing i.e. 16.10.2014, the learned counsel for the appellant-tenant is said to have submitted that the “appeal is not pressed on merits and he prays for grant of time to vacate the suit premises. Limited on the point of grant of time matter is listed for 24.10.2014….”. On 27.10.2014, the appellant-tenant changed his counsel and requested that the appeal may be heard and sought for an adjournment. The learned Single Judge declined the request for adjournment and disposed of the appeal observing that notice was issued to the respondent-landlord limited only to the point of grant of time to vacate the premises. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-tenant filed a Review Petition No.499/2014 which also came to be dismissed by an order dated 19.11.2014. These appeals assail the correctness of the said orders passed in the appeal as well as the Review Petition.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-tenant submitted that the appellant is an accredited journalist with good reputation and has paid a huge sum of Rs. 82.50 lakhs under an agreement of sale and while s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 788

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAT.S. THAKUR, V. GOPALA GOWDA, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.S.M. ASIF – AppellantVersusVIRENDER KUMAR BAJAJ – RespondentCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6106-6108 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 4987-4989 of 2015)Decided on : 12-08-2015

IMPORTANT POINTOrder XII Rule 6 CPC is an enabling conferring discretion on the Court in delivering a quick judgment on admission and to the extent of the claim admitted by one of the parties of his opponent’s claim.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, V. GOPALA GOWDA, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
S.M. ASIF – Appellant
Versus
VIRENDER KUMAR BAJAJ – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6106-6108 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 4987-4989 of 2015)
Decided on : 12-08-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
Order XII Rule 6 CPC is an enabling conferring discretion on the Court in delivering a quick judgment on admission and to the extent of the claim admitted by one of the parties of his opponent’s claim.