Delhi District Court
Sh. Raj Kumar Mehta vs Sh. Kashmiri Babbar on 17 November, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR : ADJ03 (C) : DELHI
Suit No.191/2008
Sh. Raj Kumar Mehta,
S/o Late Krishan Lal Mehta,
R/o 22/4950, Third Floor,
West Patel Nagar, Delhi. .....Plaintiff.
VERSUS
Sh. Kashmiri Babbar, S/o Sh. K.L. Babbar,
R/o 42, A.G.C.R. Enclave,
Karkardooma, Delhi.
Also at:
6970/13, Multani Dhanda,
Paharganj, New Delhi - 110055. .....Defendant.
O R D E R
17.11.2011 Present: As before.
1. Vide this order I shall dispose off an application U/o XII R VI r/w S 151 CPC interalia making a prayer to allow the application of the plaintiff and pass a decree for possession in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, directing thereby the defendant to handover the actual, physical and vacant possession of the shop on the ground floor in the property bearing No.6970/13, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, Sh. Raj Kumar Mehta Vs. Sh. Kashmiri Babbar (Suit No.191/11) Page No.1 of pages 10 New Delhi more clearly shown in red colour in the site plan, to the plaintiff with immediate effect in the interest of justice.
2. The instant suit for recovery of possession, recovery of arrears of damages/mesne profits has been filed by the aforesaid plaintiff against the above named defendant and the same is pending adjudication.
3. It is submitted in the application that in para No.11 of the plaint, the plaintiff has clearly stated that the plaintiff had sent a legal notice dated 03.01.11 to the defendant and the defendant has admitted in para 11 of the written statement that the legal notice was sent and served upon the defendant. The plaintiff has stated in para No.3 & 4 of the plaint that the Lease Deed dated 22.04.2009 was executed and signed by the defendant and plaintiff and the rate of rent was Rs.25000/ per month. The defendant has admitted in para 3 and 4 of the written statement that the said lease deed was executed and signed by the defendant and the rate of rent was Rs.25000/ per month and as such the relationship between the parties as the owner/landlord and the tenant and the rate of rent are admitted by the defendant. The position which is emerging from the pleadings is that
(i) the relationship of the landlord and tenant is admitted (ii) the tenancy got terminated by efflux of time and the legal notice dated Sh. Raj Kumar Mehta Vs. Sh. Kashmiri Babbar (Suit No.191/11) Page No.2 of pages 10 03.01.11 was sent and served upon the defendant and the same is also admitted by the defendant (iii) the rate of rent Rs.25000/ per month is also admitted. Since the rate of rent is beyond Rs.3500/ per month and as such the suit is beyond the purview of the DRC Act and on these facts, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment U/o 12 R 6 CPC. It is also settled law that the Order 12 Rule 6 CPC was enacted for the purpose of and in order to expedite the trials if there is an admission on the part of the defendant or an admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case and as such the admission can be acted upon and the decree can be passed by the court. It is further submitted that defendant has taken false defence in the written statement which is contrary to the lease deed executed and signed between the parties. It is settled law that when the terms of a contract, grant and other disposition of the property have been reduced in writing, the Section 91 of Evidence Act excludes production of any other oral or documentary evidence in proof of such terms. Under Section 92 of Evidence Act, production of Oral Evidence for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from such terms is not permissible. It has also been held that when the agreement between the parties is written, the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement. Once a contract is Sh. Raj Kumar Mehta Vs. Sh. Kashmiri Babbar (Suit No.191/11) Page No.3 of pages 10 reduced to writing, by operation of Section 91 of Evidence Act, it is not open to any of the parties to seek or prove the terms of the contract with reference to some oral or other documentary evidence to find out the intention of the parties. U/s 92 of the Evidence Act where the written instrument appears to contain the whole terms of the contract then parties to the contract are not entitled to lead any oral evidence to ascertain the terms of the contract. In view of the abovesaid settled law the false defence of the defendant is legally not tenable, and the same is against the terms of the lease deed dated 22.04.2009. It is also settled law that in the objects and reasons set out while amending Rule 6 of the 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 atleast to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled and as such the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of passing of decree of possession in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
4. Copy of the application was supplied to the defendant, but defendant did not prefer to file the reply of the said application and even has not appeared before the Court and vide order dated Sh. Raj Kumar Mehta Vs. Sh. Kashmiri Babbar (Suit No.191/11) Page No.4 of pages 10 08.11.2011 the defendant was proceeded against exparte. On the other hand, arguments were advanced by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff in details.
5. Rule 6 of Order XII of Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: R.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 subrule (1), a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the said judgment was pronounced.
The object of Order XII Rule 6 CPC is vide enough to afford relief dehors the pleadings.
In 1997 AIHC 3774 (Delhi), it was held, "the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC has to be exercised very carefully and sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances." Sh. Raj Kumar Mehta Vs. Sh. Kashmiri Babbar (Suit No.191/11) Page No.5 of pages 10 In AIR 2000 SC 2740, it was held, "the object of the Rule 6 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 Court should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule, as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where 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."
In 2004 Vol. 106 (4) Bom. LR 53, it was held, "a decree can be passed under O. 12 R 6 on the basis of an admission, whether it is contained in the pleadings or elsewhere. Such an admission may be in writing or may even be oral. No particular form of admission is necessary."
In 2000 AIHC 3398, it was held, "Failure to plead facts which constitute a valid defence must be read as admissions made as contemplated by Order XII R 6 CPC."
In Narender Kumar Vs. Vishnu Kumar Nayyar AIR 1994 Dehi 209, it was held, "the specific admission on the part of the tenant to the averments of the landlord in the petition with regard to the rent deed which is signed by the tenant is sufficient. Mere Sh. Raj Kumar Mehta Vs. Sh. Kashmiri Babbar (Suit No.191/11) Page No.6 of pages 10 assertion that the person who instituted the proceeding is not owner would not raise any triable issue."
In 2006 V AD (DELHI) 667 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kehar Singh it was held in para no.8 as under: "8. It is also a settled principle of civil jurisprudence that judgment on admission is not a matter of right and rather is a matter of discretion of a Court. Where the defendant has raised objection which will go to the very root of the case, it would not be appropriate to exercise this discretion. The use of the words 'May' and 'make such orders' or 'give such judgment' spells out that power under these rules are discretionary and use of discretion would have to be controlled in accordance with the known judicial cannons."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in IA No. 5912/2004 in CS (OS) 1578 of 2002 titled as Express Towers Vs. Mohan Singh decided on 22.8.2006 (MANU/DE/8926/2006), has held as under: "19. It is no more res integra that before a court can act under order 12 rule 6, admission must be clear and unambiguous. When the admission is not clear and unequivocal and the pleadings of the parties raise serious preliminary pleas which are likely to non suit a party, a court in its discretion can refuse to pass a decree."
Sh. Raj Kumar Mehta Vs. Sh. Kashmiri Babbar (Suit No.191/11) Page No.7 of pages 10 In RFA No. 724/2005 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Kehar Singh decided on 11.5.2006 (MANU/DE/8646/2006), it has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that: "6. The powers under order 12 rule 6 of the Code has to be exercised judicially on the facts and circumstances of each case. The admission on the basis of which the Court wishes to pass a decree has to be unambiguous, clear and unconditional.
There is no doubt that in a suit there can be more than one decree passed at different stages and each decree being separate and independent is enforceable in accordance with law, was the principle stated by MANU/SC/0505/ 1970 Chanchal V. Jalaluddin. Admission understood in its common parlance still must be a specific admission. There is very fine distinction between unambiguous and specific admission on the one hand and vague averments of facts which, if proved, could even tantamount to an admission on the part of a party to the suit. The Court has to consider the need for passing a decree on admission under these provisions only in the cases of first category and normally decline in the cases of the later category."
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions Sh. Raj Kumar Mehta Vs. Sh. Kashmiri Babbar (Suit No.191/11) Page No.8 of pages 10 made by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff. I have also perused the entire relevant material placed on record.
7. It is the case of the plaintiff that the shop on the ground floor of the property bearing No.6970/13, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, New Delhi more clearly shown in red colour in the site plan, was let out to the defendant vide registered Lease Deed dated 30.11.2010 for a period of 22 months w.e.f. 01.02.2009 till 30.11.2010 and the agreed rate of rent of Rs.25,000/ per month, as mentioned in the said Lease Deed, exclusive of electricity charges and the defendant has no right to remain in the possession of the shop after the termination of the tenancy/Lease by efflux of time, as the Lease Deed/ tenancy stands determined on 30.11.2010 and since the defendant failed to handover the possession of the shop to the plaintiff, so the defendant is an illegal occupant and tresspasser in the shop. The plaintiff was constrained to sent a Legal Notice dated 03.01.2011 upon the defendant, which is admittedly served upon the defendant.
Since, the defendant has not preferred to contest the application by filing the reply thereof and further the material admission on the part of the defendant to the effect that (i). the execution of the Lease Deed dated 22.04.2009 thereby establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant between the Sh. Raj Kumar Mehta Vs. Sh. Kashmiri Babbar (Suit No.191/11) Page No.9 of pages 10 parties wherein the rate of rent has been mentioned as Rs.25,000/ per month is not denied by the defendant; (ii). receipt of legal notice dated 03.01.2011 is also admitted by the defendant; makes him liable to suffer a decree of possession U/o 12 R 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, the application is liable to succeed and the plaintiff is entitled for decree for grant of possession U/o 12 R 6 CPC on the basis of aforesaid clear and unambiguous admissions of the defendant. As such, I hereby pass a decree of possession in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant U/o 12 R 6 CPC on admissions, thereby directing the defendant to handover the actual, physical and vacant possession of the shop on the ground floor in the property bearing No.6970/13, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, New Delhi more clearly shown in red colour in the site plan, to the plaintiff. Decree stands passed accordingly.
8. Decree Sheet be prepared.
9. Now the case be put up on 27.01.2012 for proceedings further in the matter qua the other reliefs sought by the plaintiff by leading his exparte evidence to that effect.
(Rakesh Kumar) ADJ(Central03) 17.11.2011 Sh. Raj Kumar Mehta Vs. Sh. Kashmiri Babbar (Suit No.191/11) Page No.10 of pages 10