Delhi District Court
(Central)-16: Delhi vs United Bank Of India Jt 2000 (9) Sc on 3 September, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL KUMAR AGGARWAL, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
(CENTRAL)-16: DELHI.
Suit No. 912/08
ORDER
1 This is to dispose off an application dated 07.11.08 U/o. 12 Rule 6 and section 151 CPC of the Plaintiff contending that relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted between the parties, the agreed rate of rent is more than Rs. 3,500/- per month that it was a month to month tenancy which stands terminated vide notice dated 01.05.08. On the basis of admissions in pleadings therefore, suit so far as recovery of possession is concerned may be decreed.
2. The defendant in its reply has termed the application to be misconceived and unsustainable. It is based on incorrect conclusions drawn from the Written statement. It has been denied that there are admissions of facts in the pleadings. The tenancy of defendant was subsisting and continued till 30.09.09. Further the possession of defendant is protected U/s 53 A of Transfer of Property Act as the defendant has honoured all of its contractual obligations. The Plaintiff had also been informed of the arrangement by Sh. B N Kochar as Karta of B N Kochar (HUF). The alleged termination of tenancy of the defendant thus is misconceived in law and facts. The suit is false, frivolous and deserves to be dismissed.
3. For disposal of the application, the material facts culled out of pleadings are that the Plaintiff has filed suit inter-alia for recovery of possession of flat bearing No. 12 B, Vandana, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi -01 (hereinafter called the suit property) through its Director Sh. Sanjay Jain on the ground that the defendant was the tenant in the suit property at monthly rent of Rs. 64,255/- exclusive of all other charges. The defendant was a month to month tenant and the tenancy month was according to the calender month. It was terminated vide notice dated 01.05.08 calling upon defendant to quit the suit property by midnight of 31.05.08. Despite service of notice, defendant failed to vacate the property but sent a frivolous reply dated 31.05.08. The possession of defendant after termination of tenancy is stated to be illegal, unauthorized and wrongful which the Plaintiff is entitled to recover.
4. The defendant has taken preliminary objection in the Written statement that plaint does not disclose any cause of action and material facts have been suppressed in legal notice dated 01.05.08 as well as in the plaint. The suit property had been taken on rent by defendant from B N Kochar (HUF) through its Karta and it had been specifically agreed with the said landlord that tenancy would continue till 30.09.09. The possession of defendant over the suit property thus is protected U/s 53 A of Transfer of Property Act as it has regularly paid rent of Rs. 64,255/- per month to Sh. Kochar since then. It had been stipulated in the original sale agreement dated 15.11.99 that the transfer or sale of suit property by the lessor would not effect the rights of defendant to continued to occupy the suit premises as lessee on the agreed terms. The defendant was informed by B N Kochar (HUF) vide letter dated 08.02.08 that the suit property had been sold to the Plaintiff. Vide letter dated 09.02.08 the defendant was asked to pay lease rent of the suit property to Plaintiff from said date and through another letter of same date defendant was informed that Plaintiff has been apprised of the terms of existing tenancy and its continuance till 30.09.09. Defendant therefore, paid rent of the suit property to Plaintiff from 09.02.08. It has been denied that defendant was a month to month tenant. The Plaintiff had no right to terminate the tenancy of defendant and accordingly reply to their legal notice was sent. Defendant denied liability to vacate the suit premises before 30.09.09.
5. In replication the averment about defendant enjoying protection U/s 53 A of Transfer of Property Act has been decried . It is stated that a tenancy for fixed period up to 30.09.09 could be created only by a duly registered lease deed. There is no such document in existence and moreover no lease deed at all was executed for the period ending 30.09.09. The pleas of defendant of continuing to occupy the suit property till 30.09.09 thus have been countered.
6. Arguments on behalf of parties have been heard. It has been held in Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd Vs United Bank of India JT 2000 (9) SC 78 that in the objects and reasons set out while maintaining 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 Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the Plaintiff is entitled''.
Further it was observed that the Supreme Court should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this rule as object is to enable a party to obtain a speedy judgment. Relying upon the ratio it was held in Charanjit Lal Mehra Vs Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan JT 2005 (3) SC 213 that in fact Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is enacted for the purpose of and in order to expedite the trials if there is any admission on behalf of the defendant or admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute; then, in such a case in order to expedite and dispose off the matter such admission can be acted upon.
7. A Division bench of Hon'bleDelhi High Court in Prem Naraian Mishra Vs Fairy Brothers Export and Import Ltd. RFA (0S) No. 1/2005 decided on 12.07.07 (Manu/DE/8255/2007) laid down that the objective and purpose of enacting a provision like Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is to enable the court to pronounce judgment on admission when these are sufficient to entitle the Plaintiff to get a decree. Such a provision is enacted to render speedy judgment and save the parties from going through rigmarole of protracted trial. The admission can be in the pleadings or otherwise in documents, correspondence etc. These can be oral or in writing. The admission can even be constructive admissions and need not be specifically 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. We may also refer to the ratio of Delhi Jal Board Vs Surender P Malik 2003 (111) AD (Delhi) 419 for this proposition.
8. The facts requisite for pronouncing the judgment on admissions so far as possession of suit property is concerned are :
1. Existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
2. Rate of rent being beyond the purview of Delhi Rent Control Act.
3. Termination of tenancy.
9. The above ingredients shall now be individually examined to assess whether categorical, positive, unambiguous and unequivocal admissions are exiting in the case of defendant.
A. Relationship
10. There is clear and candid admission of defendant in the written statement about having attorned to the Plaintiff in respect of the suit property acting on letters dated 08.02.08 and 09.02.08 of the previous owner. Rent of the suit property since 09.02.08 has been paid to the Plaintiff without murmur. By filing an application U/o. 1 Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 17 and section 151 CPC the defendant had tried to cloud the relationship with Plaintiff by pressing section 53 A of the Transfer of Property Act into action on the basis of oral agreement to sell the suit property and payment of part consideration. The same was dismissed on 09.02.10. Apparently the order has not been challenged in the Superior court and has become final. Even otherwise, it has been held in Bhogodi Kanna Babu Vs. Vugginna Pydamma Vugging 2006 (5) SCC 532 that a tenant cannot deny his landlord'stitle howsoever defective it may be so long as he has not openly restored possession or surrendered the premises to him.
B. Rate of rent
11. It has been specifically admitted by the defendant that rate of rent of the suit property since 09.02.08 is Rs. 64,255/- per month much beyond the purview of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. C. Termination of tenancy
12. Defendant has claimed that the tenancy in respect of the suit property was created vide lease deed dated 15.11.99 and continued vide agreement / written confirmation dated 23.11.06. Copies of said documents are available in file. These are insufficiently stamped and unregistered documents. There can be no dispute that lease of immovable property for a period of one year or more is compulsorily registrable. The documents therefore, cannot be seen even for collateral purposes. It has been held in M/s. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. Vs B N Chaddha, 133 (2006) DLT 573 that tenancy in such cases would be rendered monthly tenancy. For the same proposition reference may also be made to GM Enterprises Vs S E M Tian Export and Hotel Pvt. Ltd , 118 (2005) DLT 500 and Singer India Ltd. Vs Amita Gupta, Air 1999 Delhi 377.
13. The agreement/ written confirmation dated 23.11.06 of continuance of tenancy of the suit property in favour of defendant up to 30.09.09 thus is on a much weaker footing than the lease deed dated 15.11.99 and cannot be enforced. In the peculiar facts of this case even the alleged stipulated date of 30.09.09 has also passed by now, the defendant therefore has no legs to stand in the suit property . It has been held in K Kishore Construction Vs Allahabad Bank, 1998 RLR 248 that a court can grant judgment on admitted facts. The admissions may arise from pleadings, documents or otherwise. If tenancy agreement expires during pendency of case, decree may be granted upon such expiry. Court can ignore objection that the suit when filed was premature and also Plaintiff had not admitted relationship of landlord and tenant. The ratio of S L Associates Vs Karnataka Handloom Development, 62 (1996) DLT 386 and Shikhar Chand Vs Mst. Bari Bai , AIR 1974 MP 75 may also be utilized in the context.
14. Although the point was not raised yet it would be useful to note that acceptance of usage charges by the Plaintiff at the rate of last paid rent during pendency of suit does not entitle defendant to justify the continuance of possession of suit premises in view of the legal proposition enunciated in Shanti Pandit Devi Vs Shanker Mathew, 2005, RLR 34 . There is also no dispute between the parties about the description of suit property.
15. It can legitimately be culled from above discussions that there are real, unmistakable and candid admissions of defendant in the pleadings. All the necessary ingredients for passing a decree of possession of the suit premises at this stage itself , are present in the case. Ref. Central Bank Vs Lalit Bhargav, 2006 RLR 355. Denying the benefit to Plaintiff would tantamount to negating the enforcement of provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and rendering it to undergo the trauma of trial.
16. In conclusion the application of Plaintiff is allowed and decree of possession of suit property bearing flat No. 12 B, Vandana, 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110 001 is hereby passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendant who are enjoined to deliver the vacant and peaceful physical possession thereof unto the Plaintiff by the end of this month. Decree sheet be accordingly prepared.
Announced in open court on 3rd September, 2010 (Sunil Kr. Aggarwal) Addl. District Judge (C)-16 Delhi Suit No. 912/08 03.09.10 Present: Representative of the parties.
Vide separate order, application U/o. 12 Rule 6 CPC of the Plaintiff has been allowed and decree of possession of suit property has been passed.
For the remaining claim of recovery of mesne profits following issues on the basis of pleadings are framed:
1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitle to recover damages / mesne profits for use and occupation of suit property? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
2. Relief.
No other issue arises or pressed. Fixed 14.12.2010 for Plaintiff's evidence. Affidavits of private witness be filed and copies be directly supplied to ld. opposite counsel two weeks in advance.
(Sunil Kr. Aggarwal) Addl. District Judge (C)-16 Delhi: 03.09.2010 Announced in the open court on 10th May, 2010.
` (Sunil Kr. Aggarwal) Additional District Judge(Central)-16 Tis Hazari/Delhi