Delhi District Court
Smt. Raj Bala vs Shri Jagdish Prasad on 23 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GIRISH KATHPALIA,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH EAST : SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI.
RCT ARCT No. 1156/16
1. SMT. RAJ BALA
W/O LATE SHRI CHANDER BOSE
2. SMT. PREETI
D/O LATE SHRI CHANDER BOSE
3. SHRI ADITYA (BABLOO)
S/O LATE SHRI CHANDER BOSE
ALL R/O 57, AMRIT NAGAR,
NEW DELHI - 110003
AND 26, FLAT NO. 1B, AMRIT NAGAR
NEW DELHI 110003
... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD
S/O LATE SHRI BHAGWAN DASS
R/O 1857, SUBHASH ROAD,
GANDHI NAGAR, DELHI.
2. SHRI SANJAY KUMAR
3. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR
BOTH SONS OF SHRI GAJRAJ SINGH
R/O A56, AMRIT NAGAR
NEW DELHI 110003
...RESPONDENTS
RCT ARCT No. 1156/2016 Raj Bala & Ors. vs Jagdish Prasad & Ors. Page 1 of 10 pages Date of filing : 31.03.2016 First date before this court : 01.04.2016 Arguments concluded on : 18.07.2018 Date of Decision : 23.07.2018 Appearance : Shri Satya Prakash Gupta, counsel for appellants Shri R. D. Sharma, counsel for responjdents J U D G M E N T
1. Appellants, being tenants under the respondents have assailed order dated 17.02.2016 of the learned Additional Rent Controller, South whereby application of the present respondents under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was allowed and eviction order under section 14 (1) (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was passed. I have heard learned counsel for both sides, who took me through records.
2. The impugned judgment on admissions was written by the learned trial court in an eviction petition under the provisions of section 14 (1) (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act filed by the present respondents against the present appellants. In their eviction petition, the present respondents pleaded that the present appellants no. 1 and 2 were residing as tenants under the present respondents in premises no. 57, Amrit Nagar, New Delhi since the year 1957; that purpose of the tenancy was residential; that the present appellant no. 1 has purchased a flat in a residential building at 26, Amrit Nagar, New Delhi by way of registered sale deed dated 10.01.2005 and has acquired vacant possession thereof but continues to occupy the tenanted premises of the present RCT ARCT No. 1156/2016 Raj Bala & Ors. vs Jagdish Prasad & Ors. Page 2 of 10 pages respondents. In their written statement, the present appellants pleaded that the present respondent no. 1 is neither owner nor landlord of the said premises; that the premises in question were constructed in the year 1957 on a vacant land by predecessor of the present appellants and the same are being used for residential cum commercial purpose. In addition, the present appellants also pleaded in specific details history of the occupants and acquisition of the said premises by their predecessor, but for present purposes those pleadings are not much relevant in view of previous round of eviction litigation between the parties.
3. The short question raised on behalf of appellants in this appeal is as to whether it was a fit case to allow the eviction petition under the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC in view of specific stand taken by the present appellants in their written statement, which stand despite having been reiterated in their reply to the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was not dealt with by the learned trial court in the impugned order.
4. In preliminary objection no. 5 of reply to the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the present appellants specifically pleaded thus :
"5. That the premises are used by respondent no. 1 for residential cum commercial purposes, hence the petition is not maintainable against the respondent no. 1."
RCT ARCT No. 1156/2016 Raj Bala & Ors. vs Jagdish Prasad & Ors. Page 3 of 10 pages
5. As mentioned above, the present appellants in their written statement challenged the jural relationship of tenancy between the parties and took specific stand that the premises in question were being used for residential cum commercial purposes.
6. On behalf of appellants, it was argued that since the premises were being used for residential cum commercial purposes, eviction proceedings under section 14 (1) (h) could never succeed since the same contemplate the purpose of tenancy to be residential. On behalf of respondents, it was argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment since the present appellants have already acquired a residential premises, so they are liable to vacate the tenanted premises. Learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of Bundhu Khan vs Ahmad Hussain, 2004 (2) RCR 584; HC Goenka vs Brig. (Retd.) S. P. Kochar, 81 (1999) DLT 170; Mohd. Umar vs Azimunnisa, 2004 (1) RCR 650; Smt. Krishnawanti vs Dr. K. Madan, 85 (2000) DLT 362; Rajeev Saluja vs M/s Bhartia Industries Ltd., 2002 (2) RCR 550; and D. N. Singhal vs Krishan Kumar, (2014) 212 DLT 525 in support of his arguments.
7. As regards existence of jural relationship of tenancy between the parties, the learned trial court held that in another eviction proceedings between predecessor of the present appellants and the present respondent, factum of tenancy between them stood finally RCT ARCT No. 1156/2016 Raj Bala & Ors. vs Jagdish Prasad & Ors. Page 4 of 10 pages established, so the same cannot be reagitated.
8. At this stage, it would be apposite to traverse through the legal position related to judgment on admission.
9. The provisions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC stipulate that where admissions of facts have been made either in the pleadings or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or on its own motion and without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions. It is trite that before writing a judgment on admissions, the court must have before it unambiguous, unequivocal and clear admissions of facts, be it by way of pleadings or documents etc.
10. In the cases of Rajkumar Chawla vs Lucas Indian Services, 130 (2006) DLT 755; Charanjit Singh vs Kehar Singh, 2006 V AD (Del.) 667; and Express Towers vs Mohan Singh, 133 (2006) DLT 260, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court discussed law related to judgment on admissions and held that judgment on admissions is not a matter of right of the parties but a matter of discretion of the court, in the sense that merely because a defendant has extended an admission in pleadings or documents etc., the court is not bound to write judgment RCT ARCT No. 1156/2016 Raj Bala & Ors. vs Jagdish Prasad & Ors. Page 5 of 10 pages and may still direct the case to be taken through full dress trial.
11. In the case of Himani Alloys Ltd vs Tata Steel Ltd, 2011 Law Suit (SC) 1219, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
"[9] It is true that a judgment can be given on an "admission" contained in the minutes of a meeting. But the admission should be categorical. It should be a conscious and deliberate act of the party making it, showing an intention to be bound by it. Order 12 Rule 6 being an enabling provision, it is neither mandatory nor peremptory but discretionary. The court, on examination of the facts and circumstances, has to exercise its judicial discretion, keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the defendant, by way of an appeal on merits. Therefore, unless the admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional, the discretion of the Court should not be exercised to deny the valuable right of a Defendant to contest the claim. In short the discretion should be used only when there is a clear 'admission' which can be acted upon. There is no such admission in this case." (emphasis supplied)
12. In the case of S.M. Asif vs Virender Kumar Bajaj, VI (2015) SLT 516, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
"9. The words in Order XII Rule 6, CPC "may"
and "make such order..." show that the power under Order XII Rule 6, CPC is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Judgment on admission is not a matter of right and rather is a matter of discretion of the Court. Where the defendants have raised objections which go to the root of the case, it would not be appropriate to exercise the discretion under Order XII Rule 6, RCT ARCT No. 1156/2016 Raj Bala & Ors. vs Jagdish Prasad & Ors. Page 6 of 10 pages CPC. The said rule is an enabling provision which confers 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. In the suit for eviction filed by the respondentlandlord, appellanttenant has admitted the relationship of tenancy and the period of lease agreement; but resisted respondent plaintiff's claim by setting up a defence plea of agreement to sale and that he paid an advance of Rs.82.50 lakhs, which of course is stoutly denied by the respondentlandlord. The appellant defendant also filed the Suit for Specific Performance, which of course is contested by the respondentlandlord. When such issues arising between the parties ought to be decided, mere admission of relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be said to be an unequivocal admission to decree the suit under Order XII Rule 6, CPC."
13. So far as the judicial precedents referred by learned counsel for respondents are concerned, the same are of no help to the respondents. For, all those judicial precedents arose out of final judgments and none was on the basis of admissions. As described above, judgment on admissions can be written only where the defendant has extended unequivocal, unambiguous and clear admissions of relevant facts. In the case of Bundhu Khan (supra), it arose from testimony of plaintiff that the tenanted premises were situated in residential area. In the case of H. C. Goenka (supra) also, the evidence on record established that the tenanted premises were in residential area and owner of the same had even objected to the use of the said premises for purposes other than residential. In the case of Mohd. Umar (supra) also, RCT ARCT No. 1156/2016 Raj Bala & Ors. vs Jagdish Prasad & Ors. Page 7 of 10 pages after appreciation of evidence, view taken by the learned rent controller was upheld whereby the registration certificate (the solitary document referred to by the tenant in support of his contention that tenancy was for composite purposes) had been rejected because the certificate had lost its validity much prior to the inception of tenancy. In the case of Smt. Krishnawanti (supra) also, it is on the basis of material on record that a clear finding of fact was arrived at to the effect that the tenanted premises has been let out for residential purposes, though by way of a compromise deed, the tenant had been allowed to use the premises for commercial purposes, which concession was of no consequence since the Hon'ble Supreme Court also had directed stoppage of the misuser. In the case of Rajeev Saluja (supra), as specifically observed there was no dispute between the parties as regards nature of tenancy and it was observed that the denials in the written statement were unspecific and evasive, which is not in the present case. In the case of D. N. Singhal (supra) also, the findings as regards nature of tenancy were on the basis of evidence on record and not by way of admissions.
14. Falling back to the present case, in response to the claim of the present respondents that the premises in question are residential premises, the present appellants in their written statement specifically pleaded that the premises in question were being used for residential cum commercial purposes. Even in reply to the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, a specific objection was taken on behalf of the present RCT ARCT No. 1156/2016 Raj Bala & Ors. vs Jagdish Prasad & Ors. Page 8 of 10 pages appellants that since the premises in question were being used for residential cum commercial purposes, the eviction petition could not be allowed. But in the impugned order, the learned trial court did not reflect on this aspect.
15. According to the present appellants, section 14 (1) (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act under which the present respondents filed eviction petition pertains only to the residential premises and premises being used for commercial purposes or composite purposes cannot be sought to be vacated under section 14 (1) (h) of the Act. To that effect, pleadings of the present appellants in their written statement are clear and specific.
16. The rival pleadings before the learned trial court raise substantial questions as to whether the premises in question were being used for residential cum commercial purposes; whether the premises in question could be used for purposes other than residential purposes; and whether the provisions under section 14 (1) (h) of the Act can be invoked in a case where the premises are being used for purposes other than residential purpose are the questions which are required to be answered after full dress trial. Similarly, the present appellants also pleaded that the property acquired was by only the appellant no. 1 and not the remaining appellants. On this aspect, the learned trial court reasoned that since appellant no. 1 is mother of the remaining appellants and there is no document to show separate residence of the appellants no. 2 and 3, RCT ARCT No. 1156/2016 Raj Bala & Ors. vs Jagdish Prasad & Ors. Page 9 of 10 pages the argument of appellants is misplaced. In my considered view, these aspects clearly show that there are no clear, specific, unequivocal or unambiguous admissions of the appellants, which would call for writing a judgment on admissions.
17. Since the alleged admissions in the written statement, as discussed above cannot be held to be unambiguous, unconditional and clear, discretion of writing the judgment on admissions, thereby depriving the appellants an opportunity to prove their case was not appropriate and as such, the impugned order dated 17.02.2016 cannot be upheld. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.02.2016 is set aside.
18. Trial court record along with copy of this judgment be sent forthwith to the trial court for proceeding further in accordance with law. Both sides shall appear before the learned trial court on 28.07.2018 at 10.00 am. Appeal file be consigned to records.
Announced in the open court on
this 23rd day of July, 2018 (GIRISH KATHPALIA)
District & Sessions Judge
Digitally signed South East, Saket Courts
by GIRISH
New Delhi 23.07.2018 (ar)
GIRISH KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2018.07.24
15:54:29 +0530
RCT ARCT No. 1156/2016 Raj Bala & Ors. vs Jagdish Prasad & Ors. Page 10 of 10
pages