The court ruled that a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 requires clear, unambiguous admissions, which were absent in this case, highlighting the need for a full trial to resolve ownership and lease legitimacy issues.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J.

I.A. 721/2018 (O-XIIIA R-2 r.w. O-XII R-6 of CPC)

1. By way of the present judgment, I shall dispose of the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XII R-6 read with Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking relief of possession. Notice in this application was issued on 19th January, 2018 and reply has been filed on behalf of the defendant. Both sides have also filed written submissions along with judgments in support.

2. To appreciate the controversy in the suit, it may be useful to refer to the family structure of late Sh. Sanmukh Singh Batra. Late Sh. Sanmukh Singh Batra had two sons, namely Jaspal Singh Batra and Ravinder Pal Singh Batra. Jaspal Singh Batra has three sons, viz. Harjot Batra, Jaspreet Singh Batra and Gurjot Batra and Ravinder Pal Singh Batra has two sons, being Prabhdit Singh Batra and Hardit Batra.

3. Prabhdit Singh Batra and his brother Hardit Singh Batra are the partners of the defendant firm. At the time of filing of the present suit, the plaintiff company was controlled by late Sh. Sanmukh Singh Batra and after his demise, it appears that the plaintiff company is in the control of the sons of Jaspal Singh Batra.

4. Briefly, the plaint was filed on behalf of the plaintiff based on the following pleadings:

(i) The defendant, being a registered partnership firm, approached the plaintiff company for letting out a portion of the ground floor and basement of the property bearing No.A-41, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi-110028 (suit property). A lease agreement dated 1st April, 2007 (Lease Agreement) was entered into between the plaintiff company and the defendant firm.

(ii) The defendant firm was to pay a rent of Rs.2,50,000/- per month towards lease rental.

(iii) The lease expired on 31st March, 2010, but the defendant firm failed to vacate the lease premises.

(iv) The plaintiff company terminated the lease agreement vide legal notice dated 15th May, 2015 and vide notice dated 14th July, 2015 called upon the defendant firm to handover the vacant and peaceful physical possession of the leased premised and pay the outstanding lease rent amount for the last three years.

(v) Defendant firm failed to respond to the aforesaid notice.

5. Accordingly, the present suit was filed on 10th August, 2015 praying for the following reliefs:

"a) Decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant/its partners directing them to vacate and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property as fully mentioned in the lease deed and Para 4 of the suit to the Plaintiff.

b) Decree in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant/its partners for a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lacs only) towards arrears of rent;

c) Pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant/its partners directing them to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- per month as damages for the illegal use and occupation of the premise from termination of the lease till the handing over of the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property;

d) Pendentilite and future interest @ 18% per annnm on the aforesaid amount and cost of proceedings."

6. The suit has been contested on behalf of the defendant firm by filing a written statement, wherein it has been pleaded that:

(i) There does not exist any relationship of lessor and lessee between the parties.

(ii) The Lease Agreement has not been signed on behalf of any of the partners of the defendant firm and the same is not registered.

(iii) The Lease Agreement bears the signature of Ravinder Pal