Delhi District Court
Sh. Amit Sapra vs Sh. Rachin Bansal on 20 April, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRADEEP CHADDAH
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CS No. 288/13
Sh. Amit Sapra
S/o. Sh. K.L. Sapra,
R/o. B3/97, 2nd Floor,
Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi. ......Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Rachin Bansal
S/o. Sh. R.K. Bansal,
R/o. AK34, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi110088.
Also at :
Sh. Rachin Bansal
C/o. The Institute of Computer Accountants,
3rd Floor, Property No. 2518,
Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi110009. .......Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 17.12.2013
Date of arguments : 08.04.2015
Date of Judgment : 20.04.2015
Amit Sapra vs. Rachin Bansal Page no. 1 of 13
2
JUDGMENT :
1. Sh. Amit Sapra instituted the present suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and permanent injunction against Sh. Rachin Bansal.
2. Facts in brief as per the plaint are that the plaintiff is owner of Third Floor of property no. 2518, Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. He let out the same to defendant who was running a Coaching Centre from it. The premises was initially let out for the period of 11 months from 01.04.12. A written agreement was entered into and rent was Rs.40,000/ per month payable in advance by 7th day of each calender month. According to agreement, tenant paid Rs.1,20,000/ by cheque towards security deposit. Defendant was irregular in payment of rent. The cheque for rent of the first month as well as the cheque towards security deposit were dishonoured by the bank. Plaintiff served a legal notice terminating the tenancy dated 10.07.12 which was duly served. Defendant then issued two cheques for Rs.80,000/ and Rs.40,000/ but they too were Amit Sapra vs. Rachin Bansal Page no. 1 of 13 3 dishonoured. Payments were thereafter made in the month of September, 2012 for rent uptill August, 2012. Defendant also wrote a letter expressing his apology. Plaintiff executed a rental agreement dated 20.12.12. It was for a period of three years effective from 23.04.12 to 22.04.15. Rent uptill 22.04.13 was Rs.40,000/ p.m., rent from 23.04.13 to 22.04.14 was Rs.45,000/ p.m. and rent for subsequent period was Rs.47,250/ p.m.
3. Defendant has been habitual defaulter in payment of rent. He was served with legal notice dated 21.03.13 demanding arrears of rent. Defendant then issued a cheque for Rs.1,24,128/ but the same was dishonoured. He then issued a cheque for Rs. 1,20,000/ which too was dishonoured. Plaintiff then filed complaint u/s. 138 of NI Act which is pending for disposal. Vide notice dated 06.05.13 defendant was asked to vacate the premises and pay the arrears. Defendant wrote back seeking more time. According to the agreement dated 20.12.12 tenancy was liable to be terminated in the event of default of payment of rent for two months. Plaintiff again sent notice of termination of tenancy dated 12.09.13. The notice was Amit Sapra vs. Rachin Bansal Page no. 1 of 13 4 duly served but was not replied to. Since 23.04.13 the defendant is in arrears of rent upto to 22.11.13 amounting to Rs.3,15,000/. According to the agreement, landlord could seek liquidated damages @ Rs.2500/ per day if tenant refused to vacate and hand over the possession. Plaintiff claimed that tenant is liable to pay damages @ Rs.2500/ per day. In the present suit, he prayed for decree of possession of the suit premises, decree for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.3,15,000/ from 23.04.13 to 22.11.13, decree of recovery of mesne profits/damages of Rs.50,000/ from 23.04.13 to 22.11.13. He also sought decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from subletting, assigning or parting with possession of the suit premises along with interest and also the interest.
4. In the written statement filed, defendant controverted the claim of the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the plaint.
5. Plaintiff thereafter moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC wherein he claimed that defendant had filed vague written statement. He admitted not only relationship of landlord Amit Sapra vs. Rachin Bansal Page no. 1 of 13 5 and tenant but also rate of rent applicable from time to time and receipt of legal notice. He claimed that in view of clear admissions made by the defendant, suit be decreed. No reply was filed to the application and ld. counsel for the defendant submitted before my ld. Predecessor that he did not want to file any reply.
6. I have heard Ld. counsels for both the parties very extensively. I have also gone through the file.
7. Order XII Rule 6 CPC 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."
8. The object behind enacting Order XII Rule 6 CPC is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment to the extent of admissions Amit Sapra vs. Rachin Bansal Page no. 1 of 13 6 made by the defendant. Court should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this rule, as object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. vs. Union Bank of India - AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2740 had observed when statement made in the proceedings in the Board of Directors' meeting, as well as the pleadings read together, lead to unambiguous and clear admission, the same can be relied upon in passing the judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
10. Ld. counsel for defendant argued that plaintiff had not filed any single document regarding his ownership. He further claimed that the lease was never registered.
11. In the case in hand, plaintiff has placed on record the copy of Lease Deed dated 20.12.12. He gave its details in para 9 of Amit Sapra vs. Rachin Bansal Page no. 1 of 13 7 his plaint. In reply to para 9 in the written statement, defendant claimed that it was matter of record. That amounts to his admission of relationship as well as rate of rent.
12. In para 5 of the plaint, plaintiff claimed that since beginning, defendanttenant had been defaulting in making payment and his cheques were dishonoured. In reply to para 5, defendant claimed that plaintiff had erred in depositing the cheques though he (defendant) had assured that he would make the payment in cash. So, it is clear admission that cheque of the arrears of rent was dishonoured.
13. In para 17 of the plaint, plaintiff claimed that defendant was in arrears of rent from 23.04.13 to 22.11.13 amounting to Rs. 3,15,000/. In reply to para 17, defendant did not challenge this averment and claimed that it was all matter of record.
Amit Sapra vs. Rachin Bansal Page no. 1 of 13 8
14. In para 18 of the plaint, plaintiff claimed that he is entitled to damages @ Rs.2500/ per day. In reply to para 18, defendant just denied that plaintiff was entitled to any liquidated damage. It was a just bald denial and nothing more.
15. Regarding claim of the defendant tenant that plaintiff had not filed any document regarding ownership. I would like to submit that it does not matter when the relationship has not been disputed by the tenant. The letting was done by a document duly registered with the SubRegistrar. That should end any controversy regarding ownership and non filing of documents pertaining to ownership. I would also like to correct ld. counsel for the defendant that lease was not unregistered document but was duly registered.
16. My Lord Mr. Justice Jayant Nath in Ishpinder Kochhar vs. Deluxe Dentellers (P) Ltd. & Another - 207 (2014) DLT 689 held as follows:
"18. Clearly there is a bald denial of the calculations put forth by the plaintiff in the plaint. The only stand is that Amit Sapra vs. Rachin Bansal Page no. 1 of 13 9 rent remained stationery at Rs.2650/ per month. Order 8 Rule 3, CPC provides that it shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact. Order 8 Rule 4, CPC provides that where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively but must answer the point of substance. Similarly, Order 8 Rule 5, CPC reads as follows : "5. Specific denial. [(1)] Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability: Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission.
[(2)] Where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it
Amit Sapra vs. Rachin Bansal Page no. 1 of 13
10
shall be lawful for the court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a disability, but the Court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved."
The denial as contained in para 3 in the written statement is clearly evasive and does not answer the point in substance of the averment as given in the corresponding para of the plaint. I came to the conclusion as the calculations, taking into account the enhancement clause are not denied. What is stated is that the rent remained stationery at Rs.2650/ per month."
My Lord towards end held : "35. Reference may also be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Usha Rani vs. Nirulas Corner House Pvt. Ltd., 73 (1998) DLT 124 para 18 of which read as follows : "18. The object of Order 12 Rule 6, CPC is to enable a Amit Sapra vs. Rachin Bansal Page no. 1 of 13 11 party to obtain a speedy judgment, at 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 Order 12 Rule 6, the admission must be clear, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal. Admissions in pleadings are either actual or constructive. Actual admissions consist of facts expressly admitted either in pleadings or in answer to interrogatories. In such 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 (1) Existence of relationship of Lesser and Lessee or entry in possession of the suit property by defendant as tenant;
(2) Determination of such relation in any of the
Amit Sapra vs. Rachin Bansal Page no. 1 of 13
12
contingencies as envisaged in Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act."
17. In the case in hand, defendant virtually admitted case of the plaintiff in toto. He did not dispute the relationship nor he dispute rate of rent, period of arrears and also mesne profits. Hon'be Supreme Court in Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh (HUF) : 2008 (2) SCC 728 held as follows:
" 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 oder to enable the respondent to get a decree of eviction against the appellant."
18. Thus, it is clear that plaintiff is entitled to reliefs which he has sought. As tenancy has been validly terminated, plaintiff is Amit Sapra vs. Rachin Bansal Page no. 1 of 13 13 entitled to decree of possession of the suit property i.e. Third Floor of property no. 2518, Hudson Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi as detailed in the site plan which is now being exhibited as Ex.P1. He is also entitled to decree of recovery of rent amounting to Rs.3,15,000/ and also decree of recovery of mesne profits amounting to Rs.50,000/ and also decree of permanent injunction since tenant has no right or authority to sublet the premises or to part with premises to any third person. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to interest @ 10% per annum from the date of institution to actual realization of the outstanding amount. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on
the 20th April, 2015 (Pradeep Chaddah)
District & Sessions Judge (North)
Rohini Court, Delhi
Amit Sapra vs. Rachin Bansal Page no. 1 of 13
14
CS No. 288/13
Amit Sapra vs. Rachin Bansal
20.04.2015
Present: Plaintiff in person.
Vide separate judgment application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is allowed and suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
(Pradeep Chaddah)
District & Sessions Judge (North)
Rohini Court, Delhi
20.04.2015
Amit Sapra vs. Rachin Bansal Page no. 1 of 13