Delhi District Court
Sh. Prithipal Singh vs Mr. Howard Bent on 8 January, 2016
Page No. 1/7
SH. PRITHIPAL SINGH Vs MR. HOWARD BENT
CS No. 287/14/13
08.01.2016
ORDER ON APPLICATION U/O XII RULE 6 r/w SECTION 151 CPC: Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application moved on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC.
2 It is stated in the instant application that the above noted suit for possession and recovery of damages/mesne profits with consequential relief of injunction has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
3 It is further stated in the instant application that in the present case defendant has admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in the written statement as well as in the crossexamination of the plaintiff. It is further stated in the application that defendant has also admitted the original rent and the increased rent.
4 It is further stated in the instant application that that in view of CS No 287/14/13 Sh. Prithipal Singh Vs Mr. Howard Bent Page No. 2/7 the admission of the defendant, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed and plaintiff, by way of this application, seeking decree U/O XII Rule 6 CPC.
5 Reply filed on behalf of the defendant, wherein he denied all the contentions of the plaintiff.
6 Arguments have been heard on the present application U/O XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC for parties.
I have carefully gone through the record file.
7 In the instant case, question arises whether there is an unequivocal admission on the part of the defendant in respect of his having the tenant of plaintiff. Para3 of the WS is reproduced herein as under: "3......... Defendant took suit premises from Smt. Ajit Kaur at the monthly rent of Rs. 4,500/ which he was paying to Smt. Ajit Kaur regularly. After her demise the defendant asked one of the sons of Smt. Ajit Kaur i.e. G.P. Singh who was staying on the ground floor of the suit premises as to whom the rent is to be paid and on his consent, the defendant CS No 287/14/13 Sh. Prithipal Singh Vs Mr. Howard Bent Page No. 3/7 started paying rent to the plaintiff w.e.f. February, 2010 on the same terms and conditions as that defendant had with Ajit Kaur. No separate lease deed was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant either in February 2010 or at any time thereafter till date and more particularly the lease deed dated 25.05.2011. The defendant never signed the lease deed dated 25.05.2011 and the alleged signatures shown on the lease deed at the column "LESSEE" are not the signatures of the defendant..."
8 Order XII Rule 6 CPC provides 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 CS No 287/14/13 Sh. Prithipal Singh Vs Mr. Howard Bent Page No. 4/7 as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under subrule (1), a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced."
9 Section 17 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines admission.
The said Section 17 of Evidence Act provides as under: "17. Admission defined - An admission is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned."
10 Section 18 of Indian Evidence Act interalia provides as under: "18. Admission by party to proceeding or his agent - Statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent CS No 287/14/13 Sh. Prithipal Singh Vs Mr. Howard Bent Page No. 5/7 to any such party, whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make them, are admissions."
11 Section 21 of Evidence Act provides as under: "21. Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf - Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or his representative in interest; but they cannot proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in interest, except in the following case: (1) ...............
(2) ..............
(3) .............."
12 In "S.M. Asif Vs. Virender Kumar Bajaj", Civil Appeal Nos.
61066108 of 2015, decided on 12.08.2015, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "The words in Order XII Rule 6 CPC "may"
CS No 287/14/13 Sh. Prithipal Singh Vs Mr. Howard Bent Page No. 6/7 and "make such order..." show that the power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Judgment on admission is not a matter of right and rather is a matter of discretion of the Court. Where the defendants have raised objections which go to the root of the case, it would not be appropriate to exercise the discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The said rule is an enabling provision which confers discretion on the Court in delivering a quick judgment on admission and to the extent of the claim admitted by one of the parties of his opponent's claim."
13 In the present case, it is admitted by defendant in the written statement that it (defendant) took suit premises from Smt. Ajit Kaur at the monthly rent of Rs. 4,500/ which he was paying to Smt. Ajit Kaur regularly. Admittedly, plaintiff is son of Smt. Ajit Kaur.
14 In view of these admitted facts, objections of defendant do not go to the root of the case. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Nopany Investements (P) Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh (HUF), 2008 (2) SCC CS No 287/14/13 Sh. Prithipal Singh Vs Mr. Howard Bent Page No. 7/7 728 has held that the tenancy would stand terminated under general law on filing of a suit for eviction itself.
15 Accordingly, defendant is directed to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, who will take possession of the suit property on behalf of all the legal heirs of deceased Smt. Ajit Kaur, within 3 months from the date of this order. The instant application U/O XII Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC stands allowed.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in open Court (MAHAVIR SINGHAL) today i.e. 08.01.2016 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE WEST/DELHI CS No 287/14/13 Sh. Prithipal Singh Vs Mr. Howard Bent