Delhi District Court
Baptist Church Trust Association & Ors vs Sh. Prem Chand on 30 January, 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. ARCHANA SINHA
ADJ (CENTRAL - 03) / TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 206/2013
Baptist Church Trust Association & Ors. .. Applicants/Plaintiffs
Versus
Sh. Prem Chand ...Respondent/defendant
ORDERS ON APPLICATION 30.01.2016
1. This order shall dispose of an application dated 22.07.2014 moved under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, on behalf of the plaintiffs.
2. The facts, material and relevant for disposal of the present application is that BCTA, plaintiff No. 1 is a body competent in India to act as trustee on behalf of Baptist Missionary Society ( BMSC) with whom the suit property along with other adjacent plots were originally belonged and the said BMSC appointed the plaintiff No. 1 as trustee in respect of its various immovable properties including the present one and the plaintiff No. 2 is a regd. society controlling, CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 1 2 running, managing and administering number of Schools, Hospitals, Churches and other institutions including the Baptist Church Karol Bagh, Saraswati Marg, New Delhi05.
Further that vide letter dated 04052004, the defendant was given the permission/license for the suit property for residential purposes during the service tendered by him to the Church with the undertaking that he shall vacate the suit property as and when required by the plaintiffs, but he started neglecting his duties of taking care of church compound and the plaintiffs terminated his services and license to use and occupy the suit property vide letter dated 05072011 and the defendant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiffs wherein the defendant had given an undertaking dated 15032013 before the court of Ms. Shilpi Jain, Ld. Civil Judge that he shall vacate the suit property and handover the possession of the same to the plaintiffs on 02042013, but he did not even adhere to his undertaking. Hence the suit.
3. In the instant suit, the defendant has filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding cause of action, suppression of material facts, nonproper signing, verification and institution of the plaint by the authorized person.
CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 2 3
4. On merits, denying the averments/contents of the plaint, it is stated by the defendant that the suit property was given to him in lieu of salary of the services rendered by him and the said arrangement is still continuing and further submitted that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit just to harass the defendant & prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. It is submitted by the applicantsplaintiffs that the defendant has admitted in his various representations to the different authorities the licensorlicensee relationship of the plaintiffs and defendant, granting of license vide letter dated 04052004, duly admitted and there is an undertaking given by the defendant by way of an endorsement on the letter granting license regarding the vacation of the premises by him whenever he is being asked by the trust. Also that the license has been terminated through the legal notice served upon the defendant under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
6. Sh. B.B. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs has raised the contentions that there is a clear admission on the part of the defendant that he was granted license by Baptist Church Trust Association (BCTA) and it is a settled proposition of law as settled in Bansraj Laltaprasad Mishra Vs. Stanley Parker Jones, AIR 2006 SC 3569 that the principle of CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 3 4 estopple of licensee in possession is arising from the contract of license and is based on a healthy and salutary principle of law of justice that the licensee who could not have got possession but for the contract of license should not be allowed to launch his licensor inequitable situation taking undue advantage of the possession raising the defect in the title of his licensor and the licensee's entry into possession is on the admission of the landlord's title over such property that stops the person as per the principle of estopple under section 116 of The Indian Evidence Act to raise any such objection and such licensee is not allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time.
Also that the stress is on the possession of person at the time of handing over the possession and the title of the licensor is not relevant for applicability of provisions of section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act and that the possession be handed over back to the person or the institution who has given the possession irrespective of the title.
Further that the legal position remained same in case titled as Pur Polyurethane Products P. Ltd. Vs. Geeta Bhargava, 2009(2) AD( Delhi) 175 wherein it was observed that the principle of estopple under section 116 of the Evidence Act applies to the licensee in the manner that the act does not prohibit the licensee to challenge the title of the licensor CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 4 5 but he has to plead that subsequent to the license the licensor has lost the title.
7. It is further argued that it is a well settled proposition of law that in the case of recovery of possession of immovable property, if the person in possession, the nonsuitor questions the title of the plaintiff who seeks action for recovery of possession then the nonsuitor claiming to continue in possession is under an obligation to establish that he has a right to continue in possession and that if he takes plea that the plaintiff is not the titleholder or the owner then he or the person who is claiming to be the owner of such property has to produce title documents to establish that the claim of the plaintiff for possession be nonsuited for the want of such title as settled in case titled as Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes & Ors., Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria , AIR 2012 SC 1727.
8. Further contention raised is that the defendant was possessing the suit property as a servant during the tenure of his employment and the servant who is provided the premises by the employer during the course of employment is under an obligation to hand over the peaceful vacant possession of such premises to its employer on termination or completion of tenure of his employment. Also that it is CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 5 6 settled preposition of law as observed in case titled as Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes & Ors., Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria , AIR 2012 SC 1727, considering the ratio of the judgment in Shyam Lal Vs. Rajindera Kumar and Ors., 1994 (30) DRJ 596, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi laid clear principles of law that , 'No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property.
Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or servant has to give possession forthwith on demand.
The Courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in the premises for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or as a servant.
The protection of the Court can only be granted or extended to the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or license agreement in his favour.
The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only on behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatsoever for himself in such property irrespective of his long stay or possession'.
9. Further, it is argued that in case of license even no notice is required as per the settled propositions of law in Kailash Chander Bhai Vs. Mangal Singh Sachdeva, 24(1983) DLT 5.
CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 6 7
10. Also that for terminating the monthly lease, the service of notice is not required and even the service of the summons of the suit itself is a notice of termination of the lease or license as per the law settled in Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha ( HUF), 2011 (182) DLT 402 and in the case of Nopany Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh, 2008(2) SCC 728 referred therein.
11. Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has vehemently opposed the contentions of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitting that there is no admission by the defendant either in the WS or in the reply to the application of any fact that could call for a judgment on admission and all the averments made in the plaint have been denied specifically and that the case is at the stage of evidence as the issues have already been framed for the parties to lead evidence and thus, at this stage, the application is not maintainable & the issue of handing over the possession cannot be decided on the basis of pleadings and the representations of the defendant.
12. Further, it is argued that defendant has raised the objections that Sh. D.V. Masih being a nonBaptist was not competent to be a member of the plaintiff No. 1 in view of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court of Patna in the Writ Petition bearing No. CWJC CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 7 8 No. 3048 of 2006, to the Union of India to inquire that the BCTA's properties are intermeddled and sold by nonBaptist who was not competent to be the member of association.
Further that for the want of direct and clear admission of any facts either in pleadings or in reply to the application, the question of judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC does not arise and the application may be dismissed.
In support of his contentions, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon the law settled in the cases titled as:
i) Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha ( HUF), 2010 AIR ( SC) 1890,
ii) Radhika Choudhary Vs. M/s Payal Visions Pvt. Ltd., 2011 (123) DRJ 140.
13. I have given thoughtful considerations to the contentions of Sh.
B.B. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs and Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the defendant, in the light of the records & the authorities relied upon.
14. Before appreciation of the facts on record for disposal of the present application, it is worth to note the legal propositions as envisaged within Rule 6 of Order 12 CPC, that reads: CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 8 9
ORDER XII Rule 6. Judgment on admissions -
1. (1) Where admissions of fact have been made their 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 thing fit, having regard to such admissions.
(2) "
15. The principles laid under Order 12 Rule 6 are basically with the object to give the plaintiff a right to speedy judgment and are in consonance of 'right to speedy justice' that has now become a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as per the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court. Under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, either party to the suit may get rid of so much of the rival claims about 'which there is no controversy' and it is worth to note that Order 12 Rule 6 was amended by the Amendment Act, 1976 with intention to cut short of period of litigation on noncontroversial issues.
In a recent judgment in the case titled as Karam Kapahi & Ors. Vs. M/s Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 2077, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that even suomoto, the court can invoke these provisions in appropriate cases, to give a judgment on CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 9 10 admissions and it was observed that : '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.
If the provisions of Order 12, Rule 1 is compared with Order 12 Rule 6 CPC it becomes clear that the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 is wider in as much as the provisions of Order 12 Rule 1 is limited to admission by 'pleading or otherwise in writing' but in Order 12 Rule 6 the expression 'or otherwise' is much wider in view of the words used therein namely: 'admission of fact either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing'.
16. To look at the legislative intent and object in framing of the provisions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and the amendment made therein, the reliance is placed on the observations made in Uttam Singh Vs. UOI AIR 2000 SC 2740, wherein it was observed that, 'The object of this rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent that the admission of the defendant entitled that relief to the plaintiff, where the other party had made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed and wherever there is clear admission of facts on the face of which it is possible for the party making such admissions to succeed, it should apply.
Thus, the essence of justice is expeditious judgment. CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 10 11
17. On the point of nature of admissions in the pleadings or otherwise, case title as Surjit Sachdev vs. Kazakhastan Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. 66 (1997) DLT 54 (DB), it is observed that, 'The admissions need not be made expressly in the pleadings. Even on constructive admissions the court can proceed to pass a decree in plaintiff's favour'.
18. On the aspects of the rights of parties and the balance of the discretion of the court, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as State Bank of India Vs. M/s Midland Industries, AIR 1988 Delhi 153 has observed that, 'A judgment on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is not a matter of right, rather is a matter of 'discretion' of the court. And before a court can act under this rule, the admission must be clear, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal'.
19. So far as the stage of invoking these provisions are concerned, it is observed in Balraj Taneja Vs. Sunil Madan, AIR 1999 SC 3381, that, 'Under this rule judgment on the basis of admissions made by the defendant can be passed at any interlocutory stage of proceedings'.
Similarly, in K. Kishore & Construction (HUF) Vs. Allahabad Bank, 71 CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 11 12 (1998) DLT 581, it has been held that, 'A plaintiff may move for judgment under this provision 'at any stage'. This can obviously be availed even after he has joined issues on the defence'.
Further, it is also a settled proposition of law as settled in plethora of judgments that the plaintiff may move for judgment on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC even if the case is at the stage of finals even after the parties have led their evidence.
20. In the instant case, so far as facts are concerned, it is an admitted position that the suit property is given to the defendant in lieu of the services to be rendered by him to the plaintiffs. The letter dated 04052004 issued by F.J. Qureshi, as secretary/treasurer, BCTA of the plaintiff No. 1 is an admitted document, needs not to be proved for its contents to be read as admitted facts.
It is observed that admission of such document, makes it clearly admitted that vide letter dated 04052004, the suit property in question was allotted to the defendant by the plaintiffs, as Church Bearer, to stay there with his family, with assignment of the job to the defendant and his wife, for taking care of the Church and cleaning. CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 12 13
21. Further, there is an endorsement in Hindi, duly signed by the defendant and the English transcription thereof is reproduced as below:
'that the terms written therein are accepted and he undertook that whenever the trust will ask to vacate the premises he shall vacate & hand it over and that shall not part with possession to any other third party and that he and his family will stay there & would serve the Church'.
22. The contents of para 9 of the plaint regarding the description of the suit premises as shown in red in the site plan attached as Annexure P7, are admitted as a matter of record, thus, not disputed.
23. Moreover, the copy of plaint of suit No. 190/13, filed by the defendant for permanent and mandatory injunction in the civil court on 21072012, is also an admitted document. In such plaint the defendant as plaintiff has pleaded that the suit property was allotted to him by Baptist Missionary Society (the plaintiff No. 1 herein), vide letter dated 04052004 written to the then Pastor late Rev. M.D. George. It is also averred in such plaint that, CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 13 14 'It is not out of place to mention that the church is maintained by Baptist Union of North India (the plaintiff No. 2 herein), whose President is Rev. William Samuel and Secretary is Paul N. Prem having its office at Baptist Primary School, Karol Bagh, New Delhi which is a body which maintains the Churches in North India'
24. Thus, it is an admitted position on the basis of the admitted documents that neither the capacity of plaintiff No. 1 i.e. Baptist Church Association nor its secretary/treasurer Sh. F.J Qureshi through whom plaintiff No. 1 represents nor the plaintiff No. 2 i.e. Baptist Union of North India, through its secretary/treasurer, to file & seek possession of the suit property is in dispute nor the factum of allotment of the suit property by BCTA, plaintiff No. 1 to the defendant vide letter dated 04052004.
Also the combined effect of these admitted facts duly established is that the suit property was allotted to the defendant in the form of a permission to stay with his family with assignment of a job of taking care of the Church and cleaning that of and therefore, the defendant was admittedly a licensee to the plaintiffs who were the licensor for the purpose of the suit property in question. Hence, qua the suit property the licenseelicensor relation are established through such admitted facts.
CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 14 15
It is also clear from the contents of letter dated 04052004 that no license fee or user charges were ever fixed to be paid by the licensee nor there was any mention of any salary for the work assigned and that the licensee was to stay only 'during the tenure of the services to be rendered by him. Also that the terms of vacation of the premises were accepted by the defendant by way of an endorsement on the letter of allotment that he will vacate whenever is being asked by the plaintiffs.
25. The judgment/order dated 18122013 passed by Sh. Kishore Kumar, Ld. Civil Judge12, Central Delhi in the civil suit no. 191/2013 filed by the defendant has recorded at page 11 in para 14 on issue No. 1 that, 'There is a hand writing note on Ex. PW1/3 ( i.e. letter dated 04052004) to which the plaintiff ( defendant herein) has admitted to be in his handwriting.
According to said handwriting, written in Hindi language, plaintiff had agreed to terms and conditions of Pastor and further undertook that he shall vacate the room as and when asked and that he shall not part with possession of the same in favour of any other person. He and his family shall remain in the said room and they would serve the Church'.
26. The plaintiffs have pleaded that vide letter dated 05072011 annexure P8 of Sh. F.J Qureshi, Secretary/Treasurer of BCTA, CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 15 16 plaintiff No. 1 has terminated his services and he was instructed & asked to vacate the premises and hand over the keys to BUNI, the plaintiff No. 2.
The defendant however, in the corresponding para No. 12 of his WS has denied of receiving of any such letter dated 05072011, but the complaints dated 04082011 made to the Commissioner of Police and other dated 26092011 made to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Delhi, are the admittedly documents written by the defendant addressed to the police agencies make it explicitly clear that his 'denial' of receipt of any such letter of termination of his services and license and issuance of the instructions to him to vacate the premises, was absolutely contrary to the facts what he has submitted to the police officers regarding cancellation of his appointment by the Church and the instructions issued to him to leave the Church as he sought protection against the action of the Church, submitting that he was reappointed by another letter dated 21072011 of the Church.
27. The defendant in para 8 of his WS in reply to the contents of para 8 of the plaint has submitted that the suit property is given to the defendant in lieu of the services rendered by the defendant and the said arrangement is still continuing.
CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 16 17
It is observed that he has not mentioned any where in his pleadings that the said arrangement was continuing on what basis but during the course of arguments, the defendant has referred the above mentioned complaints particularly the one dated 26092011 given to ACP, P.S. Karol Bagh, Delhi that it is mentioned therein that, 'on 21072011, the association has given a new letter again appointing him to serve and take care of the Church'. On query about placing of any such document of reappointment allegedly issued by the association for reappointment of his service to the Church, the defendant has fairly admitted that any such letter was neither placed on record in any of the proceedings/complaints nor filed by him in any of the courts nor in the instant case nor such letter is in his possession.
But from the averments of such complaints, the defendant has impliedly admitted of termination of his service by the Association i.e. plaintiffs and his alleged reappointment vide another letter dated 21072011, also of the instructions issued to him to vacate the premises as he sought protection against eviction/dispossession from such premises.
28. Thus, it is observed that just after the date 05072011, of CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 17 18 issuance of the letter of termination of his service & license, the conduct and act of approaching the police agencies regarding his appointment & of the instructions to hand over the suit property to the Church and his plea of reappointment vide another letter are the implied admissions of his receiving of the letter dated 05072011 issued by the plaintiffs. His further action of filing of civil suit in civil court seeking injunction is another implied admission of receipt of such letter.
29. Further, in para 19 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have pleaded that the service of notice dated 30042013 of termination of license under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was effected on receipt of the duly signed acknowledgment Card. In corresponding para no. 19 of the WS, the defendant has not denied receiving of such notice rather he has pleaded with bald submissions that the letter dated 05072011 and the legal notice dated 30042013 are false, frivolous, vexatious and untenable.
It is observed that the service of legal notice of termination of license under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the acknowledgment card duly signed are not commented nor disputed thereby are indirectly admitted. How they are false, frivolous , vexatious and untenable is not mentioned.
CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 18 19
30. In case cited as 1980 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 44, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Awadh Bihari observed that, 'If plaintiff before filing suit makes serious assertions in a notice to defendant then defendant must not remain silent by ignoring to reply. If he does so then adverse inference may be raised against him'.
31. Similarly, in case cited as 1999 RLR (SC) 258, the Hon'ble Apex court had observed that, 'when a notice is given and not replied, then it is a relevant consideration'.
32. Further, in recent judgment His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Middha in Skyland International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kavita P. Lalwani, 191 (2012) DLT 594 observed that, 'a person resisting a claim for recovery of possession or claiming a right to continue in possession has to establish that he has such a right....
False claims and defences is really a serious problem with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever increasing prices of real estate. Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that other party will tire out and ultimately settle with them by paying huge amount'.
33. Thus, on applying of the principles discussed above on the legal proposition of order 12 Rule 6 CPC, to the present facts and CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 19 20 circumstances of the case, then it is observed that the Higher Courts invariably have laid several guiding principles for the lower courts to follow in exercising its discretionary powers in recording 'judgments on admissions' under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC keeping in view that the amendments in 1976 were made with the legislative intent and object to enable a party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the admission of the defendant as observed in Uttam Singh Vs. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 2740, observing that 'the essence of the justice is expeditious judgment'.
34. Also by amendment, the scope of provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is made wider and it is not limited as before, to the admissions by pleadings or otherwise in writing as now the expression used is in much wider sense, in view of the words used therein as 'admission of fact either in the pleadings or otherwise, whether orally or in writing'.
For these observations, the reliance is placed on the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Karam Kapahi & Ors. Vs. M/s Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 2077 .
35. Thus, in considering the admitted facts within the provisions of CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 20 21 Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, the court is not only to look into the admissions in the pleadings of the party but 'otherwise' also, whether orally or in writing.
36. In this case, though the defendant has denied the pleadings of the plaintiffs in a parroted manner but by admitting the documents coupled with the judicial proceedings/complaints filed by the defendant at several places he has recorded his admissions 'otherwise' than that of the pleadings, as discussed above.
37. Also it is held in case titled as Surjit Sachdev vs. Kazakhastan Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. 66 (1997) DLT 54 (DB) that the 'admissions' need not be made expressly in the pleadings or otherwise but even on constructive admissions, the court can proceed to pass a judgment on such admissions.
38. It is clear that the following three ingredients have been established on admissions:
i) The plaintiffs have allotted the suit property to the defendant and the defendant was 'permitted to stay' with his family for serving the Church thereby the licensorlicensee relations are established qua the CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 21 22 suit property for which 'license' was granted to the defendant, without any license fee.
ii) The services as well as the license was terminated vide letter dated 05072011 by the licensor.
iii) The legal notice dated 30042013 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was duly served through regd. post with acknowledgment card returned back duly signed but no replies were made to such legal notice on the serious assertions in the notice served to defendant & as the defendant remained silent by ignoring to reply, it leads to an adverse inference of having no reply in view of law settled in 1980 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 44 as it is a relevant consideration, in view of law settled in 1999 RLR (SC) 258.
39. The defendant has denied the factum of the ownership of the plaintiffs qua the suit property, stating that 'the legal and lawful ownership of the plaintiffs is denied for the want of knowledge' but to the contrary, in the admitted document i.e. the plaint filed by the defendant in suit no. 191/2013, in the Civil Court, he has pleaded that, 'Baptist Church is constructed on the two plots i.e. 33673368 and he is residing in two of such rooms in the aforementioned Church compound and the suit property was allotted by Baptist Missionary Society, the plaintiff No. 1 and the Church is maintained by Baptist Union of North India i.e. the plaintiff No. 2'.
Thus, it appears that the question of ownership is being denied 'for the want of knowledge' only to raise 'mere denial', though he has CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 22 23 proper knowledge of the ownership & management of the church, his employerlicensor.
40. It is a well settled principle of law as settled in case title as Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes & Ors., Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria , AIR 2012 SC 1727, that the person resisting a claim for recovery of possession or claiming 'a right to continue in possession', is to establish that he has a right and he has to produce sufficient detailed pleadings with particulars and the documents, to support his claim regarding the title of the person or of himself about the title/ownership of the suit property. But unfortunately the defendant has given a 'bald' reply that he denied the title/ownership of the plaintiffs for the 'want of knowledge'.
41. The contra pleadings of the defendant in the form of WS reminds the observations made by Lordship Mr. J.R. Middha in Skyland International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kavita P. Lalwani, 191 (2012) DLT 594 wherein it was observed that:
'a person resisting a claim for recovery of possession or claiming a right to continue in possession has to establish that he has such a right....
False claims and defences is really a serious problem with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever increasing prices of real estate. Litigation pertaining to valuable real CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 23 24 estate properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that other party will tire out and ultimately settle with them by paying huge amount'.
42. Thus, basically there was no substantive defence raised regarding the title/ownership of the plaintiffs rather there is clear admission that plaintiff No. 1 & 2 are the authorities who have allotted the suit property to the defendant vide letter dated 04052004 to permit him & his family to stay during his tenure of service with the Church.
43. Moreso, the law of evidence under section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act attracts the principle of estopple vide which the person who enters into the possession by a 'licensor' by virtue of the letter of allotment, is not allowed to question the title of its licensor as such person is not allowed to 'approbate and reprobate' at the same time.
44. In the instant case the plaintiff No. 1 through the letter addressed by its secretary Sh. F.J. Quershi approved the allotment of the suit property to the defendant and the suit is filed by the plaintiffs through F.J. Quershi is questioned for the title by the defendant whereas there is a clear admission on the part of the defendant in his civil suit No. 191/2013 that the plaintiff No. 1 that runs the Church under the CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 24 25 plaintiff No. 2 on behalf of Baptist Missionary Society run it in North India who has admittedly allotted the suit property to him.
45. The defendant has raised a contention that Sh. D.B. Masih being nonBaptist was not competent to be the member of plaintiff No. 1 & thus he was not authorized to sign, verify and institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff No. 1 on the ground that in a Writ petition an inquiry was directed by Hon'ble High Court of Patna regarding the BCTA for intermeddling and selling of some of its properties by a nonBaptist as he was not competent to be the member of the association.
46. This issue appears to have been raised only to prolong the litigation as authorising of a person through GPA for the purpose of conducting legal proceedings by a legal entity is not at all compatible to the issue of inquiry to be conducted relating to the selling of the properties of such Association, as the General Power of Attorney to institute the suit and conduct the legal proceedings can even be given to anyone, even to an employee of such entity, for which it is not necessary that he should be competent member or a Baptist, as a General Power of Attorney executed by BCTA is like a Vakalatnama authorising a person to plead the case on its behalf or to conduct legal CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 25 26 proceeding as that of in case of a pleader or attorney or an advocate to plead on behalf of plaintiffs. The execution of authorization by the plaintiffs even to a nonBaptist or a nonmember is not at all a legal defect or irregularity in authorizing him through a GPA.
47. Ld counsel for the defendant has also raised the contentions that at this stage when the issues have already been framed in the matter, the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is not maintainable.
48. This contention of Ld counsel for the defendant is not tenable in view of the law settled in K. Kishore & Construction (HUF) Vs. Allahabad Bank, 71 (1998) DLT 581 & Balraj Taneja Vs. Sunil Madan, AIR 1999 SC 3381, wherein it has been ruled that the 'judgment on the basis of admissions', can be made at any stage either interlocutory stage of proceedings or after framing of issues or even when the parties have already led the evidence.
Moreso, the provisions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC make it 'explicit' by using the word 'at any stage,' in the Clause 1 of Rule 6 of Order 12 CPC.
49. Ld counsel for the defendant has relied on the authorities titled as Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha ( HUF), 2011 CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 26 27 (182) DLT 402 wherein it was observed that there was no clear admissions of the appellant about termination of tenancy in its written statement or its reply to the petition moved under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and the appeal was allowed by remanding the case back.
50. It is observed that the case of the authority relied upon has no application to the instant case as it is based on the absolutely distinguishable facts. In such case, the parties have confined their case of admission only to their pleadings and Ld counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs fairly stated before that court that 'he was not invoking the case of admission 'otherwise then on pleading'.
51. But that is not the case in the instant case wherein as the plaintiffs are invoking their case not only on the basis of 'admissions in the pleadings' but 'otherwise' also referring in their application that there are admitted documents and the representations made by the defendant to different authorities and even before the courts of law wherein he has tendered his admissions on the facts relevant to the present case. Thus, the judicial opinion expressed in the authority relied upon, has no application to the present case as being based on distinguishable facts to that of such case, on the point of 'admission'. CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 27 28
52. The other authority relied upon by the defendant titled as Radhika Choudhary Vs. M/s Payal Visions Pvt. Ltd., 2011 (123) DRJ 140, is clearly based on the observations / law settled in Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha ( HUF), 2011 (182) DLT 402 case and is also based on absolutely different premises of facts as the title of suit property was questioned on the ground that the property have been vested in Gram Sabha, but in the instant case, neither the factual nor the judicial matrix is applicable to the present facts based on the admitted documents of letter of allotment of the pleadings vide which the licence was granted to the defendant. Thus, the contentions of Ld counsel for the defendant on that count are declined.
53. In view of the above discussions on law and facts as there are admissions in the pleadings and otherwise, in the documents in writing as well as orally made during the course of arguments, the three important ingredients have been duly established on record, 'that the defendant was a licencee in the suit property under the licensors, the plaintiffs, that the licence was granted only during the tenure of his services with the plaintiffs and that services have already been terminated vide letter of termination of the appointment and the licence and that the legal notice of termination of license under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is duly served upon the defendant, to terminate the license.
CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 28 29
Therefore, on establishment of these three important ingredients, duly established on admissions, the plaintiffs are entitled for 'judgment on admission' to the extent of recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant.
54. The application dated 22.07.2014 moved under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, on behalf of the plaintiffs stands allowed, the defendant is directed to hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in the open Court on (Dr. Archana Sinha) 30.01.2016. Addl. District Judge Central03, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi / 30.01.2016 CS No. 206/2013 Baptist Church Trust Association & ors., Vs. Prem Chand Page No. 29