Delhi District Court
Smt. Sunita Sethi vs Sh Satula on 12 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMITABH RAWAT,
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ, SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
Civil Suit No. 88/13
Smt. Sunita Sethi
W/o Sh. Shyam Sunder Sethi,
R/o Z-13, Naveen Shahdara,
Behind Shahdara Nursing Home,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032. ...... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh Satula
S/o Sh. Achchan Miyan,
R/o 4/2237, Gali NO.2,
Behari Colony,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
Also at:-
32/81, Bhikam Singh Colony,
Gali no.10, Vishash Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032 ...... Defendant
ORDER ON THE APPLICATION UNDER
ORDER 12 RULE 6 CPC
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the application under Order
XII Rule 6 CPC moved on behalf of the plaintiff, Smt. Sunita Sethi
and against the defendant Sh. Satula
2. (a) The present suit for recovery of possession of property
comprising of one Hall on the ground floor forming part of property
no.32/81, Bhikam Singh Colony, Gali no.10, Vishwas Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032 and arrears of rent/damages on account of
CS No.88/13 1/6
unauthorized use and occupation of the premises was filed by the
plaintiff Smt. Sunita Sethi against the defendant Sh. Satula.
(b) Plaintiff has pleaded that he is the owner/landlord of the suit
property with defendant as a tenant at a monthly rental of Rs.9000/-
per month excluding all other charges.
(c) The plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of the tenant by
legal notice dated 07.12.2012.
(d) The defendant has failed to pay the arrears of rent from
September 2012 to February 2013 @ Rs.9000/- per month.
(e) The plaintiff has claimed that defendant in his written
statement admitted his tenancy in the suit property with plaintiff as a
landlord and thus has prayed for allowing of the application under
Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for recovery of possession of suit property.
Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon judgment "Skyland International
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kavita, 191 (2012) DLT 594"
3. a) The defendant has filed the written statement contending
therein that he is the tenant in the suit property at a monthly rental of
Rs.5000/- per month from February 2009.
b) He had taken suit property on rent from Smt. Shakuntla
Joshi, erstwhile owner of the property and in this regard had executed
a rent agreement dated 28.02.2009. Thereafter, Smt. Shakuntala Joshi
sold the property to the plaintiff but no rent agreement was signed
between the plaintiff and the defendant.
c) The defendant has paid the rent upto October 2012 in cash to
the plaintiff and despite request, the plaintiff did not issue rent
receipts. At the time of receiving the rent on 10.10.2012, plaintiff
CS No.88/13 2/6
directed the defendant to either increase the rent to Rs.10,000/- per
month or to vacate the premises. The plaintiff had tried to take the suit
property by force.
d) The defendant has denied the receipt of legal notice. Thus,
the defendant has claimed that application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC
be dismissed.
4. I have heard the counsels of both the parties and my findings
are based on the record and submissions of the parties which are as
under after adumbrating to the relevant provision of Order 12 Rule 6
CPC.
Order 12 Rule 6 CPC:-
"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."
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Usha Rani Jain Vs.
Nirulas Corner House Pvt. Ltd., 73(1998) DLT 124, in para no.18
stated as follows:-
"The object of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is to enable a party to
obtain a speedy judgment, as least, to the extent of the admissions of
the defendant to which relief the plaintiff is entitled to. The rule
permits the passing of the judgment at any stage without waiting for
determination of other questions. It is equally settled that before a
court can act under 12 Rule 6, the admission must be clear,
CS No.88/13 3/6
unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal. Admission in pleadings
are either actual or constructive. Actual admission consist of facts
expressly admitted either in pleadings or in answer to interrogatories.
In a suit for ejectment, the factors which deserves to be taken into
consideration in order to enable the court to pass a decree of
possession favour of the plaintiff primarily are:-
(i) Existence of relationship of lesser and lessee or entry in
possession of the suit property by defendant as tenant.
(ii) Determination of such relation in any of the contingencies
as envisaged in Section 111 of Transfer of Property Act."
6. a) In the present case, plaintiff Smt. Sunita Sethi has claimed to
be the owner/landlady of the suit property bearing no.32/81 Bhikam
Singh Colony, Gali no.10, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi with
defendant as a tenant in respect of one hall and on the ground floor in
the said property at a monthly rental of Rs.9000/- per month. The
defendant in his written statement has admitted the landlord/tenant
relationship between plaintiff and him in para no.5 of the preliminary
objections reproduced as under
"The fact is that the defendant is tenant in the tenanted premises
consisting of one shop on ground floor on first floor forming part of
the property bearing no.32/81, gali no.11, Bhikam Singh Colony,
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 at a monthly of Rs.5000/-
per month from February, 2009."
Thus, the defendant has made an unambiguous and unequivocal
admission that he is a tenant of the plaintiff in respect of the suit
property.
CS No.88/13 4/6
b)The only point of contention raised by the defendant is that
plaintiff claim the rate of rent to be Rs.9000/- per month whereas the
defendant claims it to be Rs.5000/- per month. But this issue is not
relevant for deciding the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
c) The plaintiff has claimed that he has sent a legal notice dated
07.12.2012 to the defendant for vacating the suit premises. The
defendant denies the receipt of any such legal notice. But such
requirement of a legal notice is no more pre requisite for filing of the
suit for recovery of possession of immovable property from the tenant
by the landlord.
Even otherwise the filing of the suit is itself a notice on the
tenant to quit the tenanted premises. In Nopany Investment (P) Ltd
Vs. Santokh Singh (HUF), 2008 (2) SSC 728, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that filing of suit is itself a notice to quit on the tenant and
therefore, no notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of
Property Act is necessary to enable the landlord to get the decree of
possession. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are
reproduced hereunder:-
"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 not 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."
Thus, the filing of the present suit is itself a notice to the defendant to vacate the suit premises.
CS No.88/13 5/67. In view of the above discussion, where the landlord/tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant is admitted, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties a clear cut case of allowing the application is made out. Accordingly the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is allowed in favour of the plaintiff against defendant and regarding the possession of the tenanted premises i.e. one Hall on the ground floor forming part of property no.32/81, Bhikam Singh Colony, Gali no.10, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
8. Preliminary decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
(Announced in the (Amitabh Rawat)
Open Court on 12.10.2015 ) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ,Shahdara,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi,
(This order contains 6 pages)
CS No.88/13 6/6