Delhi District Court
Smt. Priya Garg vs Sh. Jagjit Singh Ameja on 10 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF NAVEEN K. KASHYAP,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENTCOLLER, NORTH-WEST,
ROHINI COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.
NEW CS. NO. 228/18
1. Smt. Priya Garg
W/o. Sh. Sapan Garg
2. Sh. Deepak Garg
S/o. Sh. Vijay Garg
Earlier both resident of :
B-8/15-16,
First Floor, Sector-11,
Rohini, New Delhi-85.
Presently both are residing at :
243/244, Pkt-9, Sector-21,
Rohini, New Delhi-86. ......Plaintiffs
Versus
Sh. Jagjit Singh Ameja
S/o. Sh. Man Mohan Singh
R/o. Flat No. 15-16, Pkt-B-8,
Ground Floor, Sector-11,
Rohini, Delhi-85. Defendant
Date of Institution of the case : 20/02/2018
Date of decision : 10/09/2018.
Decision : Suit Partly Decreed.
JUDGMENT UNDER ORDER 12 RULE 6 CPC
1. This is a suit for possession, recovery of arrears of
CS No. 228/18 Priya Garg & Ors.Vs. Jagjit Singh Ahuja Page 1 of 12
rent, and mesne profit/damages filed by plaintiffs against
defendant, whose tenancy as per the plaintiffs' stand determined
regarding the suit property i.e. Ground Floor, of property bearing
No- 15-16, Pocket B-8, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi as shown in red
colour in the site plan filed with the plaint.
2. In nutshell for the present purpose, it may be noted that it is
stated in the plaint that plaintiffs are the owner and landlord of the
suit property in question. The suit property was let out to
defendant for residential purpose on monthly rent @ Rs.19,500/=
per month on by the rent agreement dated 07/02/2017.
Despite demand, the defendant defaulted in paying rent
since inception. It is further stated that as such ultimately plaintiffs
requested defendant to vacate the suit premises but he failed to
do so. As such, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice dated
13/12/2017 by registered post to the defendant calling upon the
defendant not to vacate the suit property and to pay the arrears.
But defendants failed to vacate the suit premises and hand over
the same to the plaintiffs. Therefore, plaintiffs filed the present
suit, inter-alia praying that a decree of possession regarding the
suit property in their favour and against the defendant.
3. As per record, Despite repeated 4-5 opportunities given
since 15/03/2018, defendant failed to file W.S. As such vide order
dated 02/08/2018 his right to file W.S. was closed.
4. But it is pertinent to note that on 31/07/2018, defendant
orally submitted and admitted the landlord tenant relation with the
plaintiffs and further that rate of rent of suit premises is @ Rs.
19,500/= p.m. In fact it appears that as defendant has no legally
CS No. 228/18 Priya Garg & Ors.Vs. Jagjit Singh Ahuja Page 2 of 12
sustainable defense to make, he chose not to file W.S.
5. In view of such admission by the defendants side, it is
submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs that a judgment on
admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC be passed apart from
passing a judgment u/8 rule 10 CPC.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as
the defendants and have carefully gone through the record.
7. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to Order XII Rule 6
of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides as under :-
"6. Judgment on admission. - (1) Where
admissions of fact have been made either in the
pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in
writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit,
either on the application of any party or of its own
motion and without waiting for the determination of
any other question between the parties, make such
order or given such judgment as it may think fit,
having regard to such admissions.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under
sub-rule(1) a decree shall be drawn up in accor-
dance with the judgment and the decree shall bear
the date on which the judgment was pronounced."
(emphasis added)
8. In the judgment titled as "Charanjit Lal Mehra v. Kamal
Saroj Mahajan" reported as AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT
2765, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
2. ".......In fact, Order XII, Rule 6, C.P.C. is
enacted for the purpose of and in order to expedite
the trials if there is any admission on behalf of the
defendants or an admission can be inferred from
CS No. 228/18 Priya Garg & Ors.Vs. Jagjit Singh Ahuja Page 3 of 12
the facts and circumstances of the case without
any dispute; then, in such a case in order to
expedite and dispose of the matter such admission
can be acted upon. In the present case, looking at
the terms of lease deed, there can be no two
opinions that the tenancy was joint /composite and
not individual one. Therefore, on these admitted
facts the view taken by learned single Judge of the
High Court appears to be justified. In this
connection, a reference may be made to a decision
of this Court in the case of Uttam Singh Duggal and
Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India and others,
reported in 2000 (7) SCC 120. Their Lordships
have held as follows:
3. "In the Objects and Reasons set out
while amending Rule 6 of Order 12, CPC it is
stated that 'where a claim is admitted, the court has
jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and
to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of
the Rule is to enable to the party to obtain a
speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief
to which according to the admission of the
defendant, the plaintiff is entitled."......"
(emphasis added)
9. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is admitted
position of the defendant that there is the landlord-tenant
relationship between plaintiffs and defendant. Further, defendant
admitted that the rent @ Rs.19,500/= per month was agreed
between them. But it is stated that wife of defendant is not well.
10. At this stage it is very relevant to note, keep in mind and
follow the directions and observations by three judges bench of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment of " Maria
Margadia Sequeria Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria
(D)"[ decided on 21 March, 2012 in Civil Appeal No-2968 of 2012,
CS No. 228/18 Priya Garg & Ors.Vs. Jagjit Singh Ahuja Page 4 of 12
arising out of SLP (C) No. 15382 of 2009]:
".........30. The appellant submitted that for more than two
decades the appellant is without the possession of her own
house despite the fact that she has valid title to the suit
property.
Truth as guiding star in judicial process .
31. In this unfortunate litigation, the Court's serious
endeavour has to be to find out where in fact the truth lies.
The truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial
process.
32. Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The
entire judicial system has been created only to discern and
find out the real truth. Judges at all levels have to seriously
engage themselves in the journey of discovering the truth.
That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty.
33. Justice system will acquire credibility only when people
will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of
the truth.
34. In Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India 1991 Supp (1)
SCC 271, this Court observed that in such a situation a
question that arises for consideration is whether the
presiding officer of a Court should simply sit as a mere
umpire at a contest between two parties and declare at the
end of the combat who has won and who has lost or is there
not any legal duty of his own, independent of the parties, to
take an active role in the proceedings in finding the truth and
administering justice? It is a well accepted and settled
principle that a Court must discharge its statutory functions-
whether discretionary or obligatory-according to law in
dispensing justice because it is the duty of a Court not only
to do justice but also to ensure that justice is being done.
68. In order to do justice, it is necessary to direct the parties
to give all details of pleadings with particulars. Once the title
is prima facie established, it is for the person who is
CS No. 228/18 Priya Garg & Ors.Vs. Jagjit Singh Ahuja Page 5 of 12
resisting the title holder's claim to possession to plead
with sufficient particularity on the basis of his claim to
remain in possession and place before the Court all
such documents as in the ordinary course of human
affairs are expected to be there.
Only if the pleadings are sufficient, would an issue be
struck and the matter sent to trial, where the onus will be
on him to prove the averred facts and documents.
69. The person averring a right to continue in possession
shall, as far as possible, give a detailed particularized
specific pleading along with documents to support his
claim and details of subsequent conduct which
establish his possession.
70. It would be imperative that one who claims possession
must give all such details as enumerated hereunder. They
are only illustrative and not exhaustive.
(a) who is or are the owner or owners of the
property;
(b) title of the property;
(c) who is in possession of the title documents
(d) identity of the claimant or claimants to
possession;
(e) the date of entry into possession;
(f) how he came into possession-whether he
purchased the property or inherited or got the same
in gift or by any other method;
(g) in case he purchased the property, what is the
consideration; if he has taken it on rent, how much is
the rent, license fee or lease amount;
(h)If taken on rent, license fee or lease - then insist on
rent deed, license deed or lease deed;
(i) who are the persons in possession/occupation or
otherwise living with him, in what capacity; as
family members, friends or servants etc.;
(j) subsequent conduct, i.e., any event which might
have extinguished his entitlement to possession or
caused shift therein; and
CS No. 228/18 Priya Garg & Ors.Vs. Jagjit Singh Ahuja Page 6 of 12
(k) basis of his claim that not to deliver possession but
continue in possession.
71. Apart from these pleadings, the Court must insist on
documentary proof in support of the pleadings. All those
documents would be relevant which come into existence
after the transfer of title or possession or the encumbrance
as is claimed. While dealing with the civil suits, at the
threshold, the Court must carefully and critically
examine pleadings and documents.
72. The Court will examine the pleadings for specificity as
also the supporting material for sufficiency and then pass
appropriate orders. .
.
.
.
76. In pleadings, whenever a person claims right to continue in possession of another property, it becomes necessary for him to plead with specificity about who was the owner, on what date did he enter into possession, in what capacity and in what manner did he conduct his relationship with the owner over the years till the date of suit. He must also give details on what basis he is claiming a right to continue in possession. Until the pleadings raise a sufficient case, they will not constitute sufficient claim of defence...."
(emphasis added)...............
11. Thus, until the pleadings raise a sufficient case, they will not constitute sufficient claim of defence. Furthermore, it may be repeated that it is held in the judgment of "Charanjit Lal Mehra(supra)" that admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute. And in the facts and circumstances of present case, there is clear cut admissions, regarding landlord tenant relationship and rate of rent @ CS No. 228/18 Priya Garg & Ors.Vs. Jagjit Singh Ahuja Page 7 of 12 Rs.19,500/= per month. Thus, in order to expedite and dispose of the matter such admission can be acted upon.
12. At this stage it would also be fruitful to refer to Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in "Mrs. Kamal Saroj Mahajan vs Mr. Charanjit Lal Mehra And Ors. [113 (2004) DLT 788, 2004 (77) DRJ 82]:
".......5.A bare perusal of Order 12 Rule 6, re-produced above makes it clear that the emphasis is on admission of relevant facts. If the relevant facts have been admitted, the mere fact that the defendants have tried to put their own interpretation to those facts with a view to defeat the claim of the plaintiff would not be a sufficient ground to decline relief under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC. Reference in this connection may be made to some decisions of this Court. In the case of R.N. Sachdeva v. Ram Lal Mahajan Heritable Trust, 1997 III AD (Delhi) 997, it was found on facts that the premises were let out to the defendant, although agreement was ostensibly described as an agreement of collaboration. The defendant admitted the collaboration agreement but contended that the agreement had been extended for indefinite period and therefore plaintiff were not entitled for possession so long as nursing home is being run in the premises. Proper issues had been framed in the case and thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC. The application was allowed by this Court being of the view that relevant facts have been admitted. It was held that basically it was an agreement of tenancy which stands duly terminated by service of the notice. In another case reported in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Pal Properties (I) Pvt. Ltd., 91 (2001) DLT Page 438, the facts were that the, plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the property bearing No. H-72, Connaught Circus. Defendant CS No. 228/18 Priya Garg & Ors.Vs. Jagjit Singh Ahuja Page 8 of 12 Nos. 1 to 3 were tenants of the said property, part of the said property had been sub-let to defendant No. 4. Tenancy was created by a registered lease deed for a fixed term and the lease expired by efflux of time. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had sub-let the premises to defendant No. 4 on monthly rent @ Rs. 24701 /-. The tenancy was terminated by notice dated 11.7.97. In the written statement, defendants took the stand that agreed rent between them and the plaintiff was only Rs. 1400/- per month which is below Rs. 3500/-, therefore, the suit is barred under Section 50 of Act. ownership of the plaintiff was also denied. Even service of notice under Section 106, TP Act was denied. After completion of pleadings, plaintiff filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC which was opposed on the similar grounds. The Court observed that the sale deed executed by previous owners has been acted upon in other proceedings, therefore, passing of decree under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC need not be deferred only for formal proof of sale deed. On the point of termination of tenancy it was held that the lease has expired as it was a fixed term tenancy created by a registered deed. Besides, notice under Section 106, TP Act was duly served. Postal receipt have been placed on record. The plea regarding rent being less than Rs. 3500/- was negated on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Jain Company Ltd. v. Atma Ram properties (P) Ltd., reported in 65 (1997) DLT 307 (DB), wherein it was held that since the tenant himself had sub-let a part of demised premises @ Rs. 24701/- per month the case is not covered under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act. A.K. Sikri, J. repelled the contention of the defendant that the decree under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC should not be passed as the resolution authorising plaintiff's attorney to institute the suit and the notice under Section 106 CS No. 228/18 Priya Garg & Ors.Vs. Jagjit Singh Ahuja Page 9 of 12 of the TP Act has to be formally proved. It was observed that once the relevant facts are admitted, there is no need to defer passing of decree under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC if on proper interpretation of relevant documents the petitioner is entitled to the decree. .............."
(emphasis added)..................
13. Thus, in any case if the relevant facts have been admitted, the mere fact that the defendant has tried to put their own interpretation to those facts with a view to defeat the claim of the plaintiff would not be a sufficient ground to decline relief under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
14. Further, as far as rate of rent is concerned, on the basis of pleadings and admission of defendant it is @ Rs. 19.500/=per month. Consequently, it is held that as such suit premises in question does not fall within the ambit of Delhi Rent Control Act.
15. Further, there is no dispute regarding the identity and description of suit premises in question.
16. It has been clearly stated in the legal notice dated 13/12/2017 that the tenancy of the defendant has been terminated and the defendant was called upon to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises. The tenancy of the defendant therefore, stood terminated on expiry of a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice.
17. Moreover if, there was any doubt with respect to the fact that the legal notice was issued on behalf of the plaintiff, the same stood dispelled on service of the summons in the present case after institution of the present suit. A copy of the legal notice was CS No. 228/18 Priya Garg & Ors.Vs. Jagjit Singh Ahuja Page 10 of 12 clearly served on the defendant at the time of service of summons in the present suit. In fact the plaint itself can be treated as notice to quit and filing of a suit to recover possession amounts to termination of tenancy. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment titled as Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) reported as [183 (2011) DLT 712] is relied in this regard.
18. Thus, the tenancy of the defendant, therefore, stood terminated at any rate on expiry of a period of 15 days after service of summons in the present suit. The result is that in any case as on the date, the tenancy of the defendant stood terminated.
19. On termination of tenancy the status of the defendant in the suit premises has been reduced to that of an unauthorized occupant/ trespasser. The result is that the defendant is liable to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is thus entitled to decree of possession in terms of Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Reference may also be made to the judgments titled as Ved Prakash v. Marudhar Services [ 2000 (54) DRJ 654] and Mani Mann v. Ram Dulari [2001 (90) DLT 305].
As such the present suit deserves to be partly decreed. Accordingly, the plea under order XII Rule 6 CPC is allowed.
20. Accordingly, a decree of possession is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, thereby directing the defendant to hand over the vacant physical peaceful possession CS No. 228/18 Priya Garg & Ors.Vs. Jagjit Singh Ahuja Page 11 of 12 of the suit premises i.e. Ground Floor, of property bearing No- 15- 16, Pocket B-8, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan filed with the plaint, which is Ex. P-1 today for the purpose of identification.
21. The suit is partly decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in these terms under order XII Rule 6 CPC. Costs shall be determined at the time of final disposal of the entire suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly u/o 12 rule 6 CPC
22. Even otherwise, as per record, no WS filed by defendant so far despite repeated opportunity given since March, 2018. In fact, defendant appeared on 15.03.2018 and thereafter repeatedly sought adjournment for filing of WS but failed to file the same. As such, vide order dated 02.08.2018, his right to file WS was closed. Further, having regard to conduct of defendant and the observation made above including admission on part of the defendant, this Court finds that this is a fit case where judgment can be pronounced against him.
Announced in the open Court NAVEEN Digitally signed by
NAVEEN KUMAR
on 10th September, 2018 KUMAR KASHYAP
Date: 2018.09.11
(This order contains 12 pages) KASHYAP 16:45:43 +0530
(NAVEEN K. KASHYAP)
Senior Civil JudgeCum Rent Controller:
NorthWest: Rohini: Delhi
CS No. 228/18 Priya Garg & Ors.Vs. Jagjit Singh Ahuja Page 12 of 12