Delhi District Court
Sh. Pradyumn Ahuja vs Nisha Aggarwal on 2 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAVINDER BEDI,
ADJ-01(SHAHDARA), KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
CS No. 695/2019
CNR No. DLSH01-005891-2019
Sh. Pradyumn Ahuja
S/o Sh. Yogdhyan Ahuja
R/o B-36, Preet Vihar,
Delhi-92
..............Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Nisha Aggarwal
D/o Sh. Inder Kumar Aggarwal
2. Prince Aggarwal
S/o Sh. Inder Kumar Aggarwal
Both at Separate Floors and
R/o 115, Priya Enclave, Delhi-110092 and
also at House No. 557B,
Block B, Gali No. 2, West Guru Angad Nagar,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.
..........Defendants
Date of Institution of Suit : 06.09.2019
Date of Arguments : 13.10.2022
Date of Order : 02.11.2022
CS No. 695/2019 Sh. Pradyumn Ahuja v. Nisha Aggarwal and anr. Page No. 1/19
Digitally signed
by RAVINDER
RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2022.11.05
15:45:26 +0530
ORDER
1. This order shall dispose off an application filed by Plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC dated 11.10.2021 praying for judgment on admissions.
2. The relevant seminal facts for disposal of application as averred in the plaint are as follows:-
that Plaintiff is the absolute owner of property bearing no. 115, Priya Enclave, Delhi admeasuring 155.55 sq. yds.. The Defendant no. 1 was inducted as a tenant by plaintiff on fully constructed Ground Floor & First Floor of the suit property (hereinafter as 'tenanted premises') with fixtures and fittings installed therein (including electricity and water connection) by a Registered Lease Deed dated 03.10.2018. The Lease Deed was to commence from 01.10.2018 for a period of 7 months uptil 30.04.2019 and the Defendant as per Lease Deed had to pay Rs.1,20,000/- per month as rent to the plaintiff.
that on 25.03.2019, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant No. 1 calling upon her to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the tenanted premises after expiry of tenancy period i.e. 30.04.2019. However, Defendant No. 1 vide her Reply dated 28.03.2019 requested for extension of tenancy period for another three months i.e. upto 31.07.2019. She also assured to vacate the tenanted CS No. 695/2019 Sh. Pradyumn Ahuja v. Nisha Aggarwal and anr. Page No. 2/19 Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2022.11.05 15:45:31 +0530 premises on or by 31.03.2019 and issued three Cheques i.e. the rent for the months of May, June and July, 2019.
Out of these Cheques, Cheque bearing no. 457967 of Rs.1,20,000/- drawn upon Indian Bank, Laxmi Nagar was dishonored on its presentation by Plaintiff with Banker vide 'Returning Memo' dated 01.08.2019 with remarks 'Funds Insufficient'. Plaintiff apprised Defendant about dishonor of the said cheque and demanded rent from her. Plaintiff also visited the tenanted premises and asked Defendant no. 1 to pay the rent due for the month of July 2019 and to vacate the premises but Defendant no. 1 evaded such requests on one pretext or the other.
that left with no alternative, Plaintiff sent two Legal Notices dated 09.08.2019 calling upon Defendant no. 1 to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the tenanted premises and further to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/- as well as Rs.1,20,000/- towards Cheque amount for rent of July 2019. However, said Legal notices went unresponded. Though on receipt of notices, Defendant no. 1 paid the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- through bank transfer but in parts but even after this, she did not vacate the premises. She is liable to pay Rs.10,000/- per day as penalty w.e.f. 01.08.2019. Since Defendant No. 1 has failed to vacate and hand over possession of the tenanted premises, plaintiff is constrained to file present suit for possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits.
CS No. 695/2019 Sh. Pradyumn Ahuja v. Nisha Aggarwal and anr. Page No. 3/19 Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2022.11.05
15:45:36 +0530
3. Pertinently, during pendency of proceedings, defendant no. 2 (brother of defendant no. 1) filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking his impleadment in the suit claiming himself to be the tenant as per oral Agreement under plaintiff and being in possession of ground and first floor with one room on the second floor of premises since December 2014. The application was allowed and defendant Prince Aggarwal was allowed to be impleaded as defendant no. 2. Accordingly parties were allowed to file amended pleadings. Plaintiff filed an amended plaint on 15.03.2021. Defendant no. 1 filed amended written statement on 30.11.2021 and her brother- Defendant no. 2 also filed his amended written statement on 11.10.2021.
4. It is noticeable that defendant no.1 took complete contrary stand in the amended written statement from the one taken in her first written statement dated 17.10.2019. Defendant no. 1 in her first written statement accepted the averments of plaint i.e. relationship between plaintiff and defendant as that of landlord- tenant and further admitted the Rent Agreement between parties including the tenancy period. Her first written statement is reproduced as:-
".....Reply on Merits:-
1-2 That the contents of these paras need no specific comments from the answering defendant being informative in nature. It is however for the Plaintiff to prove the averments made therein.CS No. 695/2019 Sh. Pradyumn Ahuja v. Nisha Aggarwal and anr. Page No. 4/19 Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2022.11.05
15:45:39 +0530
3-4 That the contents of these paras are not denied.
5 In reply to this para it is submitted that it is not denied that in response of letter dated 25.03.2019 received from the Plaintiff, the Defendant vide letter dated 28.03.2019 requested for further extension of tenancy period upto 31.07.2019 because the defendant was trying to arrange some alternate accommodation for the purpose of running her business and was under
apprehension of getting the same by the month of July 2019 but the same could not be materialized.
6-9 In reply to this para it is submitted that during the month of Aug 2019, the defendant was going through acute financial crises and therefore could not deposit cash in her bank account due to which the alleged cheque got dishonoured. But thereafter, the Defendant arranged some funds from her near and dears and managed to make the payment of Rs.60,000/- on 09.08.2019 and further made a payment of Rs.60,005/-
on 21.08.2019 vide RTGS in the bank account of Plaintiff. It is further submitted that the Defendant has made a payment of Rs.1,20,000- towards rent for the month of August' 2019 also through NEFT on 09.10.2019 and further made a payment of Rs.1,20,000/- towards rent for the month of Sep' 2019 also through NEFT on 16.10.2019. ...."
5. Defendant no. 1 also accepted the receipt of legal notice dated 09.08.2019 sent by plaintiff. She submitted that the tenanted premises was taken on rent for commercial use only as per the terms of Lease Deed dated 03.10.2018 and she undertook to make payments of rent regularly on time till she found some alternative accommodation for running her business. However, in the amended written statement filed on 30.11.2021, she introduced completely inconsistent defence that CS No. 695/2019 Sh. Pradyumn Ahuja v. Nisha Aggarwal and anr. Page No. 5/19 Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2022.11.05 15:45:43 +0530 plaintiff's suit was not maintainable as no possession of the tenanted premises was handed over to her. She contended that on 03.10.2018 at the time of execution of Lease Deed, plaintiff had assured to put her in possession of the tenanted premises, but he failed to do so. Defendant no. 1 introduced yet another plea that the plaintiff was assuring her even during pendency of proceedings that he would hand over such possession as soon as the same was taken back from her brother i.e. defendant no. 2, already a tenant in premises and rent received from her would be adjusted towards the future rent with effect from the date when she was given physical possession of tenanted premises. She contended that tenanted premises was still with her brother i.e. the previous tenant.
6. Defendant no.1 in her amended written statement stated that the tenancy was created for 7 months with such understanding that the said would be renewed, when the actual possession was handed over to her. She contended that in March 2019, plaintiff came to defendant no.1 with two letters and got her signatures thereon which Defendant no.1 signed without going through the contents of these under the belief that plaintiff was doing this all with sole motive to procure possession of the suit property from previous tenant. She contended that even earlier written statement filed by her was also got signed by her without understanding the contents of the same merely as per instructions of the plaintiff. She denied that she was in collusion with her brother -defendant no. 2 and CS No. 695/2019 Sh. Pradyumn Ahuja v. Nisha Aggarwal and anr. Page No. 6/19 Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2022.11.05 15:45:46 +0530 admitted though both were residing in same residential premises but on separate floors.
7. Defendant no. 2 in his written statement stated that the suit was filed by plaintiff in collusion with defendant no. 1 to get the tenanted premises vacated from him, who was in possession thereof since December 2014. It was stated that the defendant no. 1 was never a tenant in tenanted premises. It was denied that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit property. An oral tenancy in respect of the premises was created in favour of defendant no. 2 in December 2014 for an indefinite period of time by plaintiff and Aprajita Ahuja together. The defendant was in physical possession of the premises under the joint ownership of plaintiff and Aprajita Ahuja and was running an eatery house under the name and style of M/s. Radha Krishna Choley Bhature' being its proprietor. The Lease Deed dated 03.10.2018 prima facie was fake and manipulated and defendant no. 2 being a tenant was continuously paying the rent to Plaintiff with last such rent paid on 18.03.2021. Initially the rate of rent in respect of tenanted premises was Rs.55,000/- per month excluding water and electricity charges and the same was enhanced to Rs.60,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.2018 and then enhanced to Rs.66,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2021. The defendant was regularly paying the same to plaintiff as per the oral tenancy since inception of same. The defendant spent Rs.7,80,000/- on renovation/furnishing of the tenanted premises from his pocket pursuant to such oral tenancy. Defendant CS No. 695/2019 Sh. Pradyumn Ahuja v. Nisha Aggarwal and anr. Page No. 7/19 Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2022.11.05 15:45:50 +0530 further paid an amount of Rs.25 lacs in cash to the landlord as interest free security.
8. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff argues that the defendant no. 1 in her first written statement has clearly admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant as well as the Lease deed. Ld. counsel refers to the relevant paragraphs in the written statement and states that the defendant no. 1 has also admitted that the premises was taken by her for commercial use as per the terms of lease deed dated 03.10.2018 and had obtained all appropriate legal sanctions. He argues that the defendant no. 2 also admitted that the status of parties as that of landlord and tenant as mentioned in para no. 10 of his written statement. It is argued that the stand of defendant no. 1 is self contradictory in the first written statement and opposed to written documents i.e. the registered lease deed and therefore not acceptable one being barred by Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is argued that the tenants can not question the ownership of the plaintiff. It is argued that the plaintiff is the sole owner of the suit property and in support of this, Ld. counsel has filed on record documents including the Gift deed executed by his sister Aprajita in his favour. Ld. counsel has placed reliance upon the Judgments of FGP Ltd. v. Saleh Hooseni Doctor (2009) 10 SCC 223; Charajit Lal Mehra & ors. v. Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan and anr. (2005) 11 SCC 279 and Karam Kapahi and Ors. v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and anr. (2010) 4 SCC 753 in support of his submissions.
CS No. 695/2019 Sh. Pradyumn Ahuja v. Nisha Aggarwal and anr. Page No. 8/19 Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2022.11.05 15:45:54 +0530
9. Per contra, ld. counsel for the defendant no. 1 argued that application was not maintainable as there was no unequivocal or clear admission on the part of defendant. It was argued that plaintiff defrauded and cheated the defendant no. 1 by executing the Lease Deed dated 10.03.2018 knowing fully well that possession was still with defendant no. 2. It was argued that the pleadings contain certain disputed facts which needed adjudication through trial and could not decided by way of present application. Counsel for defendant no. 1 has placed reliance upon Judgments of Hari Steel and General Industries Ltd. and anr. v. Daljit Singh and Ors. JT 2019 (5) SC 70 and S. M. Asif v. Virender Kumar Bajaj passed in Civil Appeal no. 6106-6108 of 2015 (DOD as 12.08.2015); Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd. JT 2011 (11) SC 222; Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar passed in Civil Appeal no. 4645/2022 (DOD as 06.06.2022) and Balraj Taneja and anr. v. Sunil Madan and anr. JT 1999 (6) SC 473.
10. Ld. counsel for defendant no. 2 has argued that the admissions, if any, must be taken as a whole and it is not permissible to rely on part of the admission and ignoring others. It is argued that the plaintiff has to stand on his own strength and therefore, he is not entitled for discretionary relief under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. He has placed reliance upon Judgments of State Bank v. Midland Industries 1987 RLR (Note) 55; Dudh Nath Pandey (Dead) by LRs v. Suresh Chandra Bhattasali (dead) AIR 1986 SC 1509, 1986; State CS No. 695/2019 Sh. Pradyumn Ahuja v. Nisha Aggarwal and anr. Page No. 9/19 RAVINDER Digitally signed by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2022.11.05 15:45:57 +0530 Bank of India v. Midland Industries and ors. on 17.09.1987 AIR 1988 Delhi 153, 1991; Simla Wholesale Mart. v. Baishnodas Kishori Lal Bhalla and anr. AIR 1977 HP 29 and S. V. Krishna Reddy v. S. Mariam Bee and Ors. 1993(3) ALT 44 to contend that there were no clear, unequivocal and unambiguous admissions on the part of the defendant and therefore the application did not attract the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. It was argued that in view of the certain disputed issues including the issue of inception of tenancy etc., plaintiff was not entitled for the discretionary relief under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
11. I have heard rival contentions of the parties, perused the record, written arguments filed by parties and the Judgments relied upon by either side in the light of relevant statutory provisions of CPC.
It is settled law that in order to seek a decree of possession against a tenant, landlord has to fullfil certain parameters as also enumerated and carved out in several judgments from time to time and which are as follows:-
Relationship of landlord and tenant. Tenancy is not a protected tenancy under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
There is no registered subsisting lease agreement. Tenancy has been terminated and the respondent tenant has failed to hand over possession.
CS No. 695/2019 Sh. Pradyumn Ahuja v. Nisha Aggarwal and anr. Page No. 10/19 Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2022.11.05 15:46:01 +0530
12. In this context, in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Payal Vision Ltd. v. Radhika Chaudhary (2012) 11 SCC 405, it is observed as :-
"7. In a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant whose tenancy is not protected under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, all that is required to be established by the plaintiff-landlord is the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the termination of the tenancy either by lapse of time or by notice served by the landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of Proper ty Act. So long as these two aspects are not in dispute the Court can pass a decree in terms of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. ...."
13. It goes without saying that at the time of deciding an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, court is expected to examine the pleadings/ documents preferred to by the applicant for seeking relief on the basis of admissions allegedly made by the other side. The law under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC was discussed in Inder Mohan Singh Vs. Sube Singh RSA No. 160/2013 decided on 10.11.2014 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court wherein it was observed as under:
"...... Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers wide powers on the Court to pass a decree on clear, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal admissions. A judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 is not a matter of right but a matter of discretion of the Court. No doubt such discretion has to be exercised judiciously. ...."CS No. 695/2019 Sh. Pradyumn Ahuja v. Nisha Aggarwal and anr. Page No. 11/19 Digitally signed by
RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2022.11.05 15:46:05 +0530
14. In Charanjit Lal Mehra vs. Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan, (2005) 11 SCC 279, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that an admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case and that Order XII Rule 6 CPC has been enacted to expedite trial and where the courts find that the suit can be disposed of on such admissions, it should not hesitate from doing so. The Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vijaya Myne vs. Satya Bhushan Kaura, 142 (2007) DLT 483, while dealing with Order XII Rule 6 CPC, held that admissions can be constructive admissions and need not be specific or expressive, which can be inferred from vague and evasive denial in the written statement while answering specific pleas in the plaint and further, that admissions can even be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a case.
15. In Shri Vimal Khanna vs. Shri Kishan Chand Khanna, DRJ 116 (2010) 251, the Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that if otherwise found entitled to a decree on admissions, the plaintiff cannot be deprived thereof by astute drafting of the written statement or by taking pleas therein which have no legs to stand upon. Another Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in P.P.A. Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mangal Sain Mittal, 166 (2010) DLT 84 had extended the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 in relation to a plaint, to the written statement and had held that clever drafting should not be CS No. 695/2019 Sh. Pradyumn Ahuja v. Nisha Aggarwal and anr. Page No. 12/19 Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2022.11.05 15:46:09 +0530 allowed to create an illusion and such defences should not be needlessly permitted to go to trial.
16. In Uttam Singh Dugal & Co. Ltd. vs. Union Bank of India & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 120, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that admissions can be those with reference to the pleadings in an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and such pleadings would also fall within the parameters of the expression "pleadings or otherwise", used in Order XII Rule 6 CPC. In Surjit Sachdeva VS. Kazakhstan Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 66 (1997) DLT 54 (DB) it was held by Hon'ble High Court that admission need not be made expressly in the pleadings. Even on constructive admission, Court can proceed to pass a decree in plaintiff's favour.
17. In a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant whose tenancy is not protected under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, all that is required to be established by the plaintiff- landlord is the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the termination of the tenancy either by lapse of time or by notice served by the landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. So long as these two aspects are not in dispute the Court can pass a decree in terms of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
18. Adverting to the facts of the present case and applying the law as discussed above, the defendants have not disputed of their being tenants under Plaintiff. The Lease Deed CS No. 695/2019 Sh. Pradyumn Ahuja v. Nisha Aggarwal and anr. Page No. 13/19 Digitally signed RAVINDER by RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2022.11.05 15:46:13 +0530 dated 03.10.2018 referred to and submitted as part of pleadings, the execution of the same being admitted by defendant no.1 not only in reply to the legal notice but also in the original written statement by her. This court observes that in her later written statement, defendant no. 1 has taken inconsistent defence by taking to explain that though lease deed in question was executed but plaintiff did not give her possession of the tenanted premises. The same per se is unpalatable and meritless in view of her own admissions in reply to legal notice dated 25.03.2019 of Plaintiff wherein she wrote ".......... I am in receipt of your notice dated 25.03.2019 regarding vacation of premises no. 115, Priya Enclave, Delhi-110092.
Sir, it is admitted that the agreement dated 01.10.2018 for a period of seven months is ending on 30.04.2019 and I am fully liable to vacate the premises by 30.4.2019.
Sir, I am the only earning member of my family bearing all my family expenses by running the shop in the above said premises.
Sir, due to my unwell financial conditions, I am not in a position to vacate the premises by 30.04.2019.
On humanitarian grounds, I Humbly request you to kindly given me an extension of 3 months, so that I can comfortably shift my shop somewhere else, and my life will not be badly affected.
I will vacate the premises on or by 31 st July, 2019. ......."
CS No. 695/2019 Sh. Pradyumn Ahuja v. Nisha Aggarwal and anr. Page No. 14/19 Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2022.11.05 15:46:17 +0530
19. Therefore the plea taken by her that she was not put into possession of the tenanted premises clearly pales into insignificance. The defendant no. 1 has admitted the execution of the lease deed which clearly, unmistakably and unequivocally depicts that by such Deed, she had taken on rent the tenanted premises from Plaintiff at the rental of Rs.1,20,000/- per month for a period of 7 months. In reply to legal Notice of Plaintiff, she admitted the factum of her being a tenant. In such circumstances, she cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. Full bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rajneesh Kumar Singhal v. The State (National Capital Territory of Delhi) 89 (2001) DLT 511 held that as an elementary rule, a party litigant cannot be permitted to assume inconsistent positions, to play fast and loose, to blow hot and cold, to approbate and reprobate, to the detriment of the opponent. The defendant herein, while admitting to averments of plaintiff cannot be permitted to take inconsistent or contrary stand in later written statement. The same is impermissible being also in the teeth of Section 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act.
20. The factual situation in the decision of M/s. Payal Vision Ltd. v. Radhika Chaudhary is a similar to the one in the present case, where a suit decreed by the trial court under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court in the first appeal on the ground there was no clear admission by the defendant either regarding existence of relationship of landlord-tenant between parties or service of CS No. 695/2019 Sh. Pradyumn Ahuja v. Nisha Aggarwal and anr. Page No. 15/19 Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2022.11.05 15:46:26 +0530 notice terminating tenancy of defendant. The validity of the lease deed was in question as it did not bear requisite stamp duty. The defendant had pleaded though he had executed the lease deed but the same was entered upon 'on the asking of plaintiff'. However, Hon'ble Apex Court rejected the contention of defendant holding that averments contained a plea of acceptance of jural relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties and the disputes regarding lease terms including nature of tenancy etc. were held to be irrelevant for the purpose of granting decree of possession.
21. This court further observes that Judgments relied by counsel for defendant no. 1 are distinguishable. In the Judgment of Hari Steel (supra), the Hon'ble Court observed that it was desirable to record findings on various contentious issues and disputes in suit on merits by appreciating evidence since the issues were framed and trial had also commenced. In such circumstances, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that there was no justification to prove the suit at that stage under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. In Himani Alloys Ltd. (supra), the issue related to two separate companies and it was observed that once the claim of respondent regarding admission was proved to be wrong, its application for judgment on admissions should have been rejected by the High Court. In S. M. Asif (supra), the contentious issues were that an eviction suit was filed by landlord, who had entered into an agreement to sell in respect of tenanted premises and payment was made by tenant, which CS No. 695/2019 Sh. Pradyumn Ahuja v. Nisha Aggarwal and anr. Page No. 16/19 Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2022.11.05 15:46:30 +0530 was acknowledged by landlord and the tenant had filed a separate suit for specific performance on the strength of said agreement to sell executed between the parties. In Karan Kapoor (supra), the relevant issue before Hon'ble Apex Court was an Agreement to sell in respect of the suit property which was also the tenanted premises. The existence of Agreement to sell was admitted by landlord and there was no relationship of lessor and lessee. Therefore, all the Judgments relied upon by the defendant no.1 are distinct and distinguishable and are of no help to the case of defendant no. 1.
22. Similarly, plea of defendant no. 2 that he has been a tenant since December 2014 in the tenanted premises based on some oral tenancy for an indefinite period, holds no ground. Section 91 of the Evidence Act provides that when terms of contract are reduced to the form of a document and in all cases, when matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of document, no evidence shall be allowed to be given in proof of such contract except document itself. Moreover, under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act 1882 r/w the Registration Act, 1908, any lease of an immovable property for a period of one year or exceeding the same necessarily has to be formally and duly executed and registered by both parties. The plea of oral tenancy for an indefinite period taken by defendant no. 2 without any documentary record is completely untenable. Equally untenable is the plea of dispute of ownership of the suit property of plaintiff by defendants who admit themselves CS No. 695/2019 Sh. Pradyumn Ahuja v. Nisha Aggarwal and anr. Page No. 17/19 Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI BEDI Date: 2022.11.05 15:46:34 +0530 to be his tenants, in view of rule of estoppel contained in Section 116 of the Evidence Act. The execution of Lease Deed has been admitted and grounds on which defendant no.2 sought to contest including ground of lease deed being a sham document, prima facie are all devoid of substance and are meritless.
23. In view of the said conspectus of factual matrix and legal position as above, this court observes that the admissions by defendants are unequivocal and unambiguous which entitle the plaintiff to a decree on admissions. As per parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions including the decision of Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Ltd. Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) and Anr. (2010) 6 SCC 601, the defendants have admitted the relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties as well as rate of rent between parties which is more than Rs.3,500/- per month so as to take the tenanted premises outside the ambit of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958. The plaintiff had sent a legal notice dated 25.03.2019 terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act which was admittedly served upon the defendant and thus the termination in accordance with law, also stands admitted. The lease term got terminated and the cheque no. 457967 tendered towards rent for July 2019 having got dishonored, the plea of the defendant no. 1 that she was never given possession clearly is without force and has to be rejected in view of her clear admissions.
CS No. 695/2019 Sh. Pradyumn Ahuja v. Nisha Aggarwal and anr. Page No. 18/19 Digitally signed by RAVINDER RAVINDER BEDI
BEDI Date: 2022.11.05
15:46:38 +0530
24. In totality of facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that plaintiff is entitled to judgment on the basis of admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and present matter does not involve any question of trial.
25. Therefore, I allow the application of plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
A preliminary decree for possession is passed in relation to the tenanted premises in favour of plaintiff against defendants.
The defendants shall vacate the suit property within two months and hand over the vacant peaceful physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
The application stands disposed of.
As far as other reliefs of recovery of rent, mesne profits and arrears are concerned, the proceedings would continue for the said purposes and final decree may be passed after the necessary evidence. Digitally signed by RAVINDER Announced in open Court RAVINDER BEDI on 02.11.2022 BEDI Date:
2022.11.05 15:46:43 +0530 (RAVINDER BEDI) Additional District Judge -02 Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi: 02.11.2022.CS No. 695/2019 Sh. Pradyumn Ahuja v. Nisha Aggarwal and anr. Page No. 19/19