Delhi District Court
Shalini Sodhi vs V M Sharma on 7 June, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN MITTAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-03, DISTRICT: SOUTH-EAST,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ No. 102/24
In the matter of:
1. Shalini Sodhi,
D/o Late Sh. Abnash Kumar Miglani,
R/o R-259, Greater Kailash Part-I,
New Delhi-48.
2. Usha Miglani,
W/o Late Sh. Abnash Kumar Miglani,
R/o R-259, Greater Kailash Part-I,
New Delhi-48. ....Plaintiffs.
VERSUS
V.M. Sharma,
S/o Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma,
R/o 6/13, Third Floor,
Block-6, East Patel Nagar,
Delhi-110008.
Also at:
R-259, Greater Kailash Part-I
New Delhi-48 ....Defendant.
Date of Institution : 27.01.2024
Date on which arguments concluded : 05.06.2024
Date of Judgment : 07.06.2024
Result : Decreed.
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit praying therein for the reliefs of recovery of possession, recovery of arrears of rent, recovery of mesne profit/damages, recovery of electricity, water, PNG, RWA CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 1 of 25 bills/charges, and costs of the suit. The case of the plaintiffs is based upon following main pleadings:
(a) Plaintiff no.1 is the daughter of plaintiff no.2. The plaintiff no.1 is the owner of the ground floor of the property bearing no. R-259, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi and the plaintiff no.2 is the owner of the lower ground floor of the same property (the ground floor and the lower ground floor of the said property shall hereinafter be referred as 'the suit property'). The plaintiff no.2, vide a registered power of attorney dated 02.11.2012, has authorized the plaintiff no.1 to lease out the lower ground floor of the suit property. The suit property consists of four bedrooms with attached bathrooms, drawing room, kitchen and servant room on the terrace. The site plan of the suit property has been filed alongwith the plaint.
(b) The plaintiffs, vide a lease agreement duly registered with the office of Sub Registrar-VA, Hauz Khas, vide Registration No. 346, Book No. I, Volume No. 5133, on pages 156 to 162 dated 24.01.2023, leased out the suit property for residential purpose to the defendant for a period of two years, commencing from 09.01.2023 and expiring on 08.01.2025, on monthly rent of Rs.
85,000/- per month for the first year and on monthly rent with an increase of 10% after completion of one year, payable in advance on or before seventh day of each calendar month. In terms of clause 11 of the said lease deed, the defendant had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- as an interest free security deposit, refundable at the time of handing over the physical vacant possession of the suit property, after deduction towards any inentional breakage, outstanding bills, pending rentals, and the cost of repair of damages, if any.
CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 2 of 25(c) The defendant, from the starting of the lease, has not been paying the rent on time and he has been delaying the payment of the rent on one pretext, or another, despite repeated requests/reminders by the plaintiffs. The defendant paid: (i) Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- on 10.04.2023 towards the rent for the month of February, 2023; (ii) Rs. 30,000/- on 18.03.2023 and Rs. 50,000/- on 10.04.2023 towards the rent for the month of March, 2023; (iii) Rs. 75,000/- on 19.04.2023 towards the rent for the month of April, 2023; (iv) Rs. 85,000/- on 12.05.2023 towards the rent for the month of May, 2023; and (v) Rs. 85,000/- on 26.06.2023 towards the rent for the month of June, 2023.
(d) It was agreed in the lease deed that the lease can be terminated by either party by giving one month's written notice to the other party and it was further agreed that upon the failure of the lessee in making the payment of monthly rent for two months, the lease shall stand automatically terminated.
(e) The plaintiffs, vide legal notice dated 10.05.2023 sent to the defendant through speed post on 16.05.2023, terminated his tenancy w.e.f. 30.05.2023 and he was required to hand over the possession of the property by 30.06.2023. The defendant has neither replied the said legal notice, nor has he complied with the same. The defendant has threatened the plaintiffs that his mother is an ACP in the Delhi Police and that he will transfer the suit property to some other person on the basis of forged documents.
(f) The defendant has stopped the payment of rent from November, 2023 onwards and the defendant has not paid the monthly rent of November, 2023 and December, 2023.
CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 3 of 25(g) The defendant has also failed to pay the electricity bill of Rs.
22,720/-, water bills Rs. 58,585/-, PNG bills of Rs. 2369/- and RWA charges.
(h) The plaintiff no.1 has two daughters and she needs the suit property for her residence as she has sold her other property for meeting the education expenses for her daughters.
(i) The tenancy of the defendant has been terminated and he is in illegal possession of the suit property from 01.07.2023.
(j) In the background of aforesaid pleadings, plaintiffs have prayed for the following reliefs:
"(a) To pass a decree for possession of the demised premises in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant directing the defendant to vacate and handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises, i.e. Ground Floor and Lower Ground Floor consisting of four bedrooms with attached bathrooms, drawing and kitchen and servant room on terrace of property bearing no. R-259, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi-48 to the plaintiffs.
(b) To pass a decree for arrears of rent from November, 2023 and December 2023 i.e. Rs. 1,70,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
(c) To pass a decree for damages and mesne profit @ Rs.
85,000/- per month in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant from 01.01.2024 till the date of vacation and delivery of actual, peaceful and vacant possession of the demised premises to the plaintiff alongwith interest @ 18% per annum alongwith all up to date electricity and water dues.
(d) To pass a decree against the defendant to pay the electricity, water, PNG and RWA charges as per bills till the defendant is in possession of the suit premises.
(e) Costs of the suit be also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Such other and further orders be also passed as are necessary in the interest of justice."
CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 4 of 254. In pursuance of service of summons, defendant entered appearance before this Court through his counsel and filed the written statement on 10.05.2024. The defence as pleaded in the written statement can be summarized as under:
(a) The plaint is liable to rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for non disclosure of cause of action and for under valuation of reliefs sought.
(b) The plaintiffs have not filed the documents of ownership over the suit property.
(c) As per clause 4 of the lease agreement, it was agreed that the first year starting from 09.01.2023 till 08.01.2024 will be the lock-in period and the plaintiffs cannot seek the eviction of the defendant during the said lock-in period.
(d) The defendant has not received the alleged legal notice from the plaintiffs.
(e) The defendant has paid the entire rents, bills and entire arrears through online, or cash, which can be proved at the time of evidence before this Court. The defendant paid the rent till November and he was ready to pay the remaining arrears of rent, however, the plaintiffs denied the same.
(f) The plaintiffs have no bonafide requirement of the suit property.
5. Upon completion of the pleading, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs prayed that the judgment, in terms of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, on the basis of admission made by the defendant in the written statement, may be passed. Ld. Counsel for the defendant, on the other hand, has argued that there have arisen several triable issues, which warrant trial and, therefore, this suit cannot be disposed off under Order 12 Rule 6 CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 5 of 25 CPC, moreso, when the plaintiffs have not filed any separate application for the same.
6. I have heard Sh. Deepak Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs and Sh. Arun Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the defendant and perused the record.
7. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs has contended that there is no dispute as regard the fact of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and the fact of the said relationship being not governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act. So far, the defences of defendant regarding the ownership of the plaintiffs, payment of rent etc. and lock-in period are concerned, Ld. Counsel has argued, that the said defences are utterly meritless. Ld. Counsel has, therefore, argued that the parties are not at issue and, therefore, the Court may pronounce the judgment at once. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendant has argued that there are triable issues which warrant the trial in as much as, the lease cannot be validly terminated and the plaintiffs cannot seek eviction of the defendant within first year of the lease as the period from 09.01.2023 to 08.01.2023 was a lock-in period as per clause 4 of the lease agreement.
8. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions, it becomes necessary to examine as to whether in the present suit the parameters for the eviction of a tenant are satisfied and further, whether the present suit requires the framing of issues and then, trial of the same.
9. It is a settled law that in order to succeed in a suit for recovery of possession, the plaintiff-landlord has to prove following ingredients: (a) the relationship of landlord-tenant; (b) the valid termination of lease; and (c) the lease is not protected under Delhi Rent Control Act. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Payal Vision Ltd. v. Radhika Choudhary, (2012) 11 SCC 405 has held as under:
CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 6 of 25"7. In a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant whose tenancy is not protected under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, all that is required to be established by the plaintiff landlord is the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the termination of the tenancy either by lapse of time or by notice served by the landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. So long as these two aspects are not in dispute the court can pass a decree in terms of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, which reads as under:
"6. Judgment on admissions.--(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 give 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 accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.""
The reliance in support of the above proposition of law is also placed upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Pal Properties (India) Pvt. Ltd. , 2001 SCC OnLine Del 438.
10. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that issues regarding the ownership of the plaintiffs, termination of tenancy and payment of rent, should be framed, while Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs has argued that no issue on the basis of a meritless defence/plea is required to be framed. In view of this, it becomes necessary to examine as to when the Court can pronounce the judgment without framing the issues and as to when an issue is required to be framed.
11. Order 15 Rule 1 CPC reads as under:
"1. Parties not at issue.--Where at the first hearing of a suit it appears that the parties are not at issue on any question of law or of fact, the Court may at once pronounce judgment".CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 7 of 25
Thus, the judgment can be pronounced when parties are not at issue. The subject of framing of issues has been dealt with under Order 14 of CPC. Order 14 Rule 1(4) CPC provides that an issue may be an issue of fact, or an issue of law. Order 14 Rule 1(1) CPC provides that issue arises when a material proposition of fact, or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the opposite party. The material propositions, as per Order 14 Rule 1(2) CPC, are those propositions of law and fact, which a plaintiff must alleged in order to show a right to sue, or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence.
12. The Delhi High Court in Kawal Sachdeva v. Madhu Bala Rana & Ors., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1479 extensively dealt with the subject of framing of issues as under:
"18. This Court in Lakshmikant Shreekant (HUF) v. M.N. Dastur & Company Pvt. Ltd., 1998 (44) DRJ 502 held that the Court is required to frame issues of fact or of law that necessarily and properly arise for determining the real controversy involved on the pleadings of the parties and that such issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other and the Court would not frame an issue which does not arise on the pleadings nor a issue need be framed on a point of law which is perfectly clear. It was further held that the Court is required to apply its mind and understand the facts before framing the issue. It was yet further held that if the plea is mala fide or preposterous or vexatious and can be disposed of without going into the facts or is contrary to law or the settled legal position, the Court will not be justified in adopting a hands off policy and allow the game of the defendant to have its sway.
19. Similarly in Zulfiquar Ali Khan v. Straw Products Limited, 87 (2000) DLT 76 it was observed that it is a notorious fact that to drag the case, a litigant often takes all sorts of false or legally untenable pleas and it was held that legal process should not be allowed to be misused by such persons and only such defence as give rise to clear and bona fide dispute or triable issues should be put to trial and not illusory or unnecessary or mala fide CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 8 of 25 based on false or untenable pleas to delay the suit. It was yet further held that the Court is not bound to frame an issue on unnecessary or baseless pleas, thereby causing unnecessary and avoidable inconvenience to the parties and waste of valuable Court time.
20. The High of Bombay also in Mohammad Hayatkhan Karimkhan v. Taramati MANU/MH/1494/2010 held that in order to frame an issue it is necessary to consider whether the plea raised is bona fide or merely raised to delay decision in the matter and which entitles the litigant so raising the plea to remain in possession of the property until adjudication of the issue. It was further held that it is also necessary to see whether there is sufficient material placed on record to frame an issue and to make a reference. The learned Judge observed that it is well settled that no frivolous plea need be a matter of reference and the Court before framing an issue is entitled to see whether such plea is bona fide and has any basis in the material placed on record. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of that Court in Pulmati Shyamlal Mishra v. Ramkrishna Gangaprasad Bajpai 1981 Maharashtra Law Journal 321 laying down that it is not correct to assume that the Court is under any obligation to frame and remit the issue of tenancy mechanically, merely on the same being raised in the written statement without judicial satisfaction of its necessity and justification; that remittance of any such tenancy issue and the trial thereof is known to have become a long winding and time consuming process enuring the delay for the benefit of the person in possession of the land and which prompts and tempts such persons to take such pleas to perpetuate his unmerited possession. The Bombay High Court further held that the Court has a duty to examine the substance and refuse to frame and remit any issue if the same appears to be demonstrably frivolous and mala fide. Reliance in this regard was placed on the law laid down by the Apex court on Thomas Antony v.Varkey Varkey (2000) 1 SCC 35 though in the context of reference to a Tribunal but holding that the law making reference to the Tribunal mandatory cannot be said to have intended that even a patently frivolous, mala fide and illegal plea taken by a party merely to delay the proceeding and to remain in possession is to be referred to the Tribunal and CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 9 of 25 the statutory provisions have to be read as envisaging a reference only where a bona fide and legally sustainable plea is taken.
21. The Bombay High Court in Sociedade Patriotica Dos Baldios Das Novas Conquistas v. Sudhakar Sagun Bhandari MANU/MH/0819/2008 also held that under order 14 of the CPC an issue can only arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other and when a vague plea is taken, the Court should hesitate to frame an issue on such a vague plea, unless the party is able to give particulars in support of the plea. To the same effect is the judgment of yet another Bench of the Bombay High Court in Uttam Sambha Deshmukh v. Yamunabai MANU/MH/0387/1998 where a bald plea unsubstantiated by any documentary evidence was held to be not sufficient for the purpose of framing an issue.
22. This Bench also in order dated 12.03.2013 in CS(OS) No. 505/2010 titled as Kavita Chaudhri v. Eveneet Singh; order dated 03.04.2013 in CS(OS) No. 791/2011 titled Satish Handa v. Ashok Diwan and order dated 07.11.2012 in CS(OS) No. 2695.2011 titled Satya Gupta v. Guneet Singh held:
(i) that the Court under Order 14 Rule 1(5) is required to, after reading the plaint and the written statement and after examination under Rule 2 of Order 10 and after hearing the parties or their pleaders, ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and to thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend;
(ii) that issues are not to be framed on whatsoever pleas are contained in the pleadings but on material pleadings of fact and law and a plea which has no basis in law to stand on and/or a plea qua which law is well settled cannot be said to be a material plea inviting framing of an issue thereon; and
(iii) it cannot be lost sight of that framing of an unnecessary issue invites unnecessary evidence and arguments and which protracts disposal of the suits.
23. Mention may lastly be made of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Vijaya Myne v. Satya Bhushan CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 10 of 25 Kaura 142 (2007) DLT 483 (DB) though in the context of order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC but holding that admissions can even be constructive which can be inferred from vague and evasive pleadings and that admissions can even be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. If it were to be held that on every plea, howsoever vague and unsubstantiated, an issue needs to be struck, there can be no effective application of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC as laid down in this judgment.
28. Though jurisprudentially our justice delivery system is an adversarial one but even the said system does not require the Court/Judge to be a mute spectator in the litigation before it and to apply its mind only at the stage of final decision and by which time, if the litigants are shrewd or cunning, the delay may end up in denial of justice. The Courts have to keep pace with the times and cannot notwithstanding the practice, of the litigants taking false pleas to suit their purpose, becoming rampant, continue to act in a passive manner to conduct the trial mechanically. The Supreme Court recently in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequira (2012) 5 SCC 370 has also observed that the Judge has to play an active role".
13. Then, the Delhi High Court in a subsequent judgment dated 21.05.2019 in the case titled Anil Kumar v. Devender Kumar & Ors., CS(OS) 350/2018, while relying upon the aforesaid judgment in Kawal Sachdeva (supra) reiterated the law as under:
"16. I have in Kawal Sachdeva Vs. Madhu Bala Rana, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1479 held that, (i) when a vague plea is taken, the Court should hesitate to frame an issue on such a vague plea unless the parties are able to give particulars in support of the plea; (ii) a bald plea unsubstantiated by any documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purpose of framing an issue; (iii) issues are not framed on whatsoever pleas are contained in the pleadings but only on material pleadings of fact and law; (iv) a plea which has no basis in law to stand on and / or a plea qua which law is well settled cannot be said to be a material plea inviting framing of an issue thereon; and, (v) framing of an unnecessary issue invites unnecessary evidence and arguments and which protracts the disposal of suits. Reference in this regard may also be made to Adarsh Kumar Puniyani Vs. Lajwanti Piplani 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14022, Abbot Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 11 of 25
Vs. Raj Kumar Prasad (2018) 249 DLT 220 and Bhavana Khanna Vs. Subir Tara Chand 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6978".
14. The Delhi High Court in Santosh Kumar v. Col. Satsangi's Kiran Memorial Aipeccs Educational Complex and Another , 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12089 has held as under:
"12. The court cannot frame an issue and put a suit to trial when the parties, on perusal of the pleadings, are not found to be on issue at any question of law or fact. Attention of the counsel for the appellant/defendant in this regard is drawn to Order XV of the CPC which has been referred to in several of the judgments under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. In Ashoka Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. Dewan Chand Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 159 DLT 233, reiterated in Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. Vikramjit Singh Puri, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11183 and again reiterated in Bhupinder Jit Singh v. Sonu Kumar, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11061, it was held (i) that the plaintiff, if otherwise found entitled to a decree on admission, cannot be deprived thereof by astute drafting of the written statement and/or by taking pleas therein which have no legs to stand upon; (ii) the Court is to read the pleadings of the parties meaningfully; (iii) issues are to be framed on 'material' and not all propositions of law and fact which may be contained in the pleadings and which are not material i.e. on the outcome whereof the outcome of the suit does not depend; (iv) a plea, which on the face of it is found by the Court to be untenable, does not require the framing of any issue. In Adarsh Kumar Puniyani v. Lajwanti Piplani, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14022 it was held that material propositions of law or fact would mean such issues which are relevant and necessarily arise for deciding the controversy involved; if a plea is not valid and untenable in law or is not relevant or necessary for deciding the controversy involved, the Court would not be bound and justified in framing issue on such unnecessary or baseless pleas, thereby causing unnecessary and avoidable inconvenience to the parties and waste of valuable Court time; (v) the Court is not obliged to, on finding pleas to have been raised in the written statement, mechanically frame issues thereon. If issues were to be framed in such manner, the same would be in disregard of the word 'material' in Order XV Rule 1 of the CPC; (vi) the enquiry thus to be made at the time of framing of issues is, whether the pleas raised in the written statement, purportedly in defence to the claim in the plaint, have any material bearing to the outcome of the suit and if it is found that irrespective of the findings thereon, the CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 12 of 25 plaintiff would be entitled to the relief, the parties are not to be put to trial in the suit. Similarly, in Zulfiquar Ali Khan v. Straw Products Ltd., (2000) 87 DLT 76, it was observed that it is a notorious fact that to drag the case, a litigant often takes all sorts of false or legally untenable pleas and it was held that legal process should not be allowed to be misused by such persons and only such defence as give rise to clear and bona fide dispute or triable issues should be put to trial and not illusory or unnecessary or mala fide based on false or untenable pleas to delay the suit. It was yet further held that the Court is not bound to frame an issue on unnecessary or baseless pleas, thereby causing unnecessary and avoidable inconvenience to the parties and waste of valuable Court time. Reference in this regard may also be made to Kawal Sachdeva v. Madhu Bala Rani, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1479, P.S. Jain Co. Ltd. v. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd., (2013) 205 DLT 302, Vansons Footwear (P) Ltd. v. USP Fashion Weaves (P) Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6998 and A.N. Kaul v. Neerja Kaul, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9597".
15. Reliance is also placed upon the judgments of Delhi High Court in Shiv Kumar v Sumit Gulati, (2015) SCC OnLine Del 13857 and Bhupinder Jit Singh v. Sonu Kumar, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11061 wherein it has been held that where there is no triable issue, the Court can pronounce judgment without going into trial.
16. The Delhi High Court in P.P.A. Impex (P) Ltd. v. Mangal Sain Metal, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3866 held as under regarding the merit-less defence/plea in the written statement:
"8. In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467; V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. has observed albeit in the context of dismissing a vexatious plaint which is equally applicable when the Court is confronted with a defence which is implausible that if on a meaningful--not formal-reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the Court should exercise its power under the said provision. And if clever drafting has created an illusion of a cause of action, it should be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10, CPC.
9. It appears to us that the approach to be taken under Order XII Rule 6 is akin to what has been enunciated by the Supreme Court CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 13 of 25 in Mechalac Engineers & Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corporation, (1976) 4 SCC 687, in the context of Order 37 of the CPC with regard to granting leave to defend a summary suit. This is that if a defence amounting to moonshine has been presented, it should be summarily dismissed by not granting leave to defend and by decreeing the suit forthwith. The Courts are already groaning under the weight of bludgeoning and exponentially increasing litigation. The weight will unvaryingly increase if moonshine defences are needlessly permitted to go to trial".
17. In the light of the law as explained herein above, the substance/merit in the defences of the defendant needs to be examined.
18. The first defence of the defendant is that the plaintiffs have not filed any document to show their ownership over the suit property. In this regard, it may be noted that Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872, bars the tenant from disputing the title of the landlord. The first defence of the defendant is, therefore, held to be meritless.
19. Now, I will examine as to whether the second defence of the defendant raises a triable issue for going into trial or not. The second defence of the defendant is that the lease cannot be validly terminated and the plaintiffs cannot seek eviction of the defendant within first year of the lease as the period from 09.01.2023 to 08.01.2024 was a lock-in period as per clause 4 of the lease agreement. I am afraid that there is no merit in the said second defence of the defendant either. The said clause 4 reads as under:
" 4. It has been agreed between the parties that the lock-in period of the lease deed will be of one year starting from 09.01.2023 to 08.01.2024, in this period leasee cannot vacate the said premises and if lessee wishes to vacate the premises before the expiry of the lock-in period then the lessee will be liable to pay the rent of the balance lock-in period."
Thus, the restriction upon the termination of the lease during the lock-in period was only upon the tenant i.e. the defendant herein and there was no restriction upon the landlord i.e. the plaintiffs herein for terminating CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 14 of 25 the lease during the lock-in period. I am also of the view that the said lock-in period is subject to the compliance of other terms of the lease agreement. The defendant cannot act in violation of the terms of the lease agreement, and at the same time, argue that the lease cannot be terminated by the landlord on account of breach of the lease agreement by him. If the defendant is allowed to take such a plea/defence, it will amount to allowing him to take advantage of his own wrong. As per the plaint, the defendant, being irregular in making payment of monthly rent, was guilty of violating the term of the lease agreement regarding the payment of monthly rent on or before the seventh day of each calender month. Plaintiffs also claim that the lease agreement got automatically terminated in accordance with the clause 17 therein as a result of failure on the part of the defendant to pay the rent for two consecutive months of November, 2023 and December, 2023. Neither of the parties, be it the landlord, or the tenant, can violate the terms of the lease agreement and at the same time claim protection under the shield of the lock-in period.
20. The third defence of the defendant, as pleaded in para 6 under the heading 'preliminary objections' in the written statement, is that the defendant had paid the entire rent, bills and arrears through online, or cash, which can be proved at the time of evidence before this Court. Further, the defendant paid the rent till November. The plaintiffs in para no.15 and 22 of the plaint has alleged that the defendant stopped paying rent from November, 2023 onwards and that he has not paid the rent for the month of November, 2023 and December, 2023. The defendant, in para 9 and 12 under the heading 'reply on merits' in the written statement, has evasively denied the said allegation in the corresponding paras of the plaint. Further, the defendant, in para 6 under the heading 'reply on merits' in the written statement, in response to the CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 15 of 25 corresponding para 10 of the plaint, has admitted that he paid the rent till the month of November only. Order 8 Rule 3 and 4 of the CPC require the defendant to deny the allegations in the plaint specifically and not evasively. Rule 5, then, provides that if the allegation in the plaint is not denied specifically, or by necessary implication, the same shall be taken to have been admitted by the defendant. The fact that the defendant has not substantiated his defence regarding the payment of rent by adducing any proof, amounts to be an admission on the part of the defendant that he was not regular in making the payment of rent and also that he stopped paying the rent November, 2023 onwards.
21. Now, the question arises as to whether the lease stood validly terminated. The plaintiffs are claiming that the lease stood terminated in pursuance of issuance of legal notice dated 10.05.2023, which required the defendant to vacate the suit property by 30.06.2023. The clause 12 of the lease agreement reads: " 12. That the lease can be terminated even before the expiry of the lease period, by either party, by giving one month's written notice to the other party, or one month's rent in lieu thereof". Though, the defendant has evasively denied to have received the said notice, the postal receipts filed with the plaint show that the defendant was in fact served with the said legal notice of termination of the lease w.e.f. 01.07.2023. Even if the lease is not deemed to have been terminated vide the aforesaid legal notice, the lease had got automatically terminated w.e.f. 01.01.2024, on account of non payment of rent of two consecutive months of November, 2023 and December, 2023, as per clause 17. The said clause 17 reads as: "17. That if the lessee fails to pay the monthly rent consecutive for two months then the lease will stand automatically terminated". Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF), (2008) 2 SCC 728, has held that filing of suit is itself a notice to CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 16 of 25 quit on the tenant and, therefore, no notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act is necessary to enable the landlord to get the decree of possession. The observation of the Supreme Court are reproduced as: "22.... In any view of the matter, it is well settled that filing of an eviction suit under the general law itself is a notice to quit on the tenant. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that no notice to quit was necessary under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act in order to enable the respondent to get a decree of eviction against the appellant. This view has also been expressed in the decision of this Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, (1979) 4 SCC 214.
22. Indubitably, the tenancy between the plaintiffs and the defendant in the present case is not protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act, as the rent agreed in the lease agreeement was Rs. 85,000/- per month for the first year and with an increase of 10% after that, which was a way more than Rs. 3500/- per month.
23. In view of the above discussion, I have arrived at the conclusion that all the three ingredients: (a) the relationship of landlord- tenant; (b) the valid termination of lease; and (c) the lease is not protected under Delhi Rent Control Act, which are required to be proved in an eviction suit by the landlord against the tenant, stand proved. I find that the defence/plea taken by the defendant does not raise any triable issue of law or of fact and, therefore, there is no impediment in pronouncing the judgment at once without going into trial, in terms of Order XV Rule 1 CPC.
24. The present suit is liable to be decreed, at this stage itself, in terms of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC as well, which reads as under:
"6. Judgment on admissions.--(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 CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 17 of 25 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 give 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 accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced".
25. The power to pass a judgment on the basis of admission as provided under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC can be exercised by the Court suo- moto as well, as held in Karam Kapahi v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust, (2010) 4 SCC 753:
"39. In the 54th Law Commission Report, an amendment was suggested to enable the court to give a judgment not only on the application of a party but on its own motion. It is thus clear that the amendment was brought about to further the ends of justice and give these provisions a wider sweep by empowering the Judges to use it "ex debito justitiae", a Latin term, meaning a debt of justice. In our opinion the thrust of the amendment is that in an appropriate case, a party, on the admission of the other party, can press for judgment, as a matter of legal right. However, the court always retains its discretion in the matter of pronouncing judgment".
26. The Delhi High Court in P.P.A. Impex (P) Ltd. (Supra) has emphasized to ignore the vexatious and false defence put forth by the defendant, while exercising the power under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC:
"7. So far as the case relating to Order 12 Rule 6 is concerned, the Supreme Court has recommended resort to this provision to bring a quick end wherever a vexatious and false defence has been presented. The following paragraph from Charanjit Lal Mehra v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan, (2005) 11 SCC 279 : AIR 2005 SC 2765 is reproduced for facility of reference:
....In fact, Order 12 Rule 8, CPC is enacted for the purpose of and in order to expedite the trials it there is any admission on behalf of the defendants or an admission can be interred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute; then, in such a CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 18 of 25 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 & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC 120 : AIR 2000 SC 2740. The Lordships have held as follows:
'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 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.' The Supreme Court should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment."
27. The Delhi High Court in Delhi Jal Board v. Surendra P. Malik, 2003 SCC OnLine Del 292, observed as under:
"8. The provision confers almost sweeping powers on the Court to render a speedy judgment in the suit to save the parties from going through the rigmarole of a protracted trial. The only pre- requisite for this is that there must be admissions of fact arising in the suit, be that in the pleadings or otherwise or orally or in writ ing. Such admission of facts must be clear and unequivocal, unconditional and unambiguous and may relate to the whole claim or a part of it. These need not be made specifically or expressly and could be a constructive admissions also. Whether or not such admission arose in the suit would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. If it involved disputed facts, claims and counter claims requiring evidence of parties for determination of issues or where the defence of a party touched the root of the matter, a judgment could not be passed under Order 12 Rule 6 dispensing with the trial because the valuable right of going to trial CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 19 of 25 could not be taken away from the party unless the claim was admitted. A duty was, therefore, cast on the court to ascertain the admission of facts and to render judg ment on these either in respect of the whole claim or a part of it. The court could do so on its own or on the application of a party and without waiting for the deter mination of any other question between the parties. It could do so at any stage of the suit. Dealing with the scope of provision, Supreme Court said in Uttam Singh Duggai v. Union, AIR 2000 SC 2740:--
"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 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. We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain a speedy judgment. Where the other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed."
9. The test, therefore, is (i) whether admissions of fact arise in the suit, (ii) whether such admissions are plain, unambiguous and unequivocal, (iii) whether the defence set up is such that it requires evidence for determination of the issues and (iv) whether objections raised against rendering the judgment are such which go to the root of the matter or whether these are inconsequential making it impos sible for the party to succeed even if entertained. It is immaterial at what stage the judgment is sought or whether admissions of fact are found expressly in the pleadings or not because such admissions could be gathered even constructively for the purpose of rendering a speedy judgment.
28. The Delhi High Court in Vijaya Myne v. Satya Bhushan Kaura, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 828, observed as under:
"12. It is not necessary to burden this judgment by extracting from the aforesaid authoritative pronouncent as the learned Single Judge has accomplished this exercise with prudence and dexterity. Purpose would be served by summarizing the legal position which is that the purpose and objective in enacting the provision like Order 12 Rule 6, CPC is to enable the Court to pronounce the CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 20 of 25 judgment on admission when the admissions are sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to get the decree, inasmuch as such a provision is enacted to render speedy judgments and save the parties from going through the rigmarole of a protracted trial. The admissions can be in the pleadings or otherwise, namely in documents, correspondence etc. These can be oral or in writing. The admissions can even be constructive admissions and need not be specific or expressive which can be inferred from the vague and evasive denial in the written statement while answering specific pleas raised by the plaintiff. The admissions can even be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt, for this purpose, the Court has to scrutinize the pleadings in their detail and has to come to the conclusion that the admissions are unequivocal, unqualified and unambiguous. In the process, the Court is also required to ignore vague, evasive and unspecific denials as well as inconsistent pleas taken in the written statement and replies. Even a contrary stand taken while arguing the matter would be required to be ignored".
29. Thus, the ratio of aforesaid judgments is that the Court, while exercising power under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, should ignore vexatious, false and merit-less defence/plea.
30. I have already returned the findings herein above which are to the effect that the defence of the defendant, which is entirely premised upon the pleas of disputing the ownership of the plaintiffs, the non-terminability of the lease during the lock-in period and payment of rent, are false, vexatious, merit-less, and without the support of any evidence. I am of the view that the defences of defendant are based upon an astute and clever drafting of the written statement. The said defences seem to have been taken only for the purpose of prolonging the illegal possession of the defendant by protracting the present suit. If the said defence of the defendant is ignored, which this Court is duty bound to do so, all the three ingredients: (a) the relationship of landlord-tenant;
(b) the valid termination of lease; and (c) the lease is not protected under Delhi Rent Control Act, are deemed to have been admitted by the CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 21 of 25 defendant. Therefore, the present suit is a fit case for exercising the wide powers conferred by Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for pronouncing the judgment at this stage itself and without going into trial.
31. The first relief sought by the plaintiffs is the eviction of the defendant from the suit property. The plaintiffs are held entitled to this relief.
32. The second relief sought by the plaintiff is the recovery of arrears of rent for an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/-, calculated at the rate of Rs. 85,000/- per month for the month of November, 2023 and December, 2023, alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The plaintiffs are held entitled to the recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- as arrears of rent. The rate of interest upon the said amount will be determined in the para under the heading 'relief' herein below.
33. The third relief sought by the plaintiffs is the recovery of pendente-lite and future damages/mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 85,000/- per month from 01.01.2024 till the date of handing over the possession of suit property, alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The said damages/mesne profit have been claimed at the rate of monthly rental for the first year of the lease as agreed between the parties. The plaintiff is held entitled to the said relief as well. The rate of interest upon the said amount will be determined in the para under the heading 'relief' herein below.
34. I must note here that it is the burden of plaintiffs to prove the mesne profit/damages by reliable and cogent evidence in accordance with the law, as held in National Radio & Electronic Co. Ltd. v. Motion Pictures Assn., 2005 SCC OnLine Del 675. In terms of Order XX Rule 12 CPC, the Court can either straightway pass a decree for the mesne profit at the time of passing the decree for recovery of possession, or direct an enquiry to be conducted for assessing the mesne CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 22 of 25 profit/damages. In case, the Court finds that sufficient evidences are available on record for the purpose of determination of the issue of mesne profit; the Court can award the mesne profit on the basis of such evidence. In the alternative, when there is no sufficient evidence available; the Court may direct an enquiry to be conducted in this regard. In the present case, there is on record a registered lease agreement dated 16.01.2023, and plaintiffs have prayed for the grant of arrears of rent and mesne profit/damages in accordance with the terms of the said lease agreement only. In view of this, there is no difficulty in awarding the mesne profit/damages in accordance with the terms of the said registered lease agreement dated 16.01.2023. Hence, the mesne profit/damages have been awarded accordingly.
35. The Delhi High Court in the case of Consep India (P) Ltd. v. Cepco Industries (P) Ltd., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1349 observed that interest is an integral part of the mesne profits and, therefore, the same has to be allowed in the computation of mesne profits itself. In the present case, the plaintiff has claimed pendente lite and future interest upon the rent/mesne profit/damages at the rate of 18% per annum, which, however, I, find to be disproportionately on higher side. I am of the view that the simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum would meet the end of justice.
36. The fourth relief sought by the plaintiffs is the recovery of electricity bill, water bill, PNG bill and RWA charges. The plaintiffs, apart from alleging the non payment of the said bills/charges by the defendant, have not even annexed the copies of the said bills, much less than, proving the non-payment of the same. The plaintiffs are, thus, held to be not entitled to the recoveryof the said bills/charges.
RELIEFS:
CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 23 of 2537. In view of the above discussion, the following decrees/directions are passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant:
(i) Defendant is directed to vacate and handover the peaceful physical possession of the suit property i.e. the upper ground floor and the ground floor of the property bearing no. R-259, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi, which comprises of four bedrooms with attached bathrooms, drawing room, kitchen and servant room on the terrace, as decribed in the site plan of the suit property filed alongwith the plaint.
(ii) A decree for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- towards arrears of rent for the month of November, 2023 and December, 2023, along with pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment.
(iii) A decree for the recovery of mesne profit/damages at the rate of Rs. 85,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2024 with 10% yearly increment till the date of handing over the vacant and peaceful physical possession of suit property, along with simple interest at rate of 12% per annum from the date of the said mesne profit/damages becoming due and till the date of actual payment.
(iv) Costs of the suit as per the rules.
38. It is made clear here that no direction regarding the security deposit amount of Rs. 1,70,000/-, which was deposited by the defendant with the plaintiffs, is being passed herein and the defendant can seek the refund of the said amount from the plaintiffs upon handing over the physical vacant possession of the suit property and after deduction CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 24 of 25 towards arrears of electricity bill, PNG bill, water bill, RWA bill and damages in the suit property, if any.
39. Upon plaintiffs depositing additional Court fees upon the award of pendente-lite and future damages/mesne profit, a decree sheet as per this judgment be prepared.
40. File be consigned to Record Room thereafter.Digitally signed
SACHIN by SACHIN Announced & dictated in MITTAL MITTAL Date: 2024.06.07 the open court on 07.06.2024 17:03:17 +0530 (Sachin Mittal) District Judge-03/South-East District Saket Courts, New Delhi/07.06.2024 Certified that this judgment contains 25 pages and each page bears my signatures. SACHIN by Digitally signed SACHIN MITTAL MITTAL Date: 2024.06.07 17:03:26 +0530 (Sachin Mittal) District Judge-03/South-East District Saket Courts, New Delhi/07.06.2024 CS DJ No. 102/24 Shalini Sodhi V. V.M.Sharma Page 25 of 25