Delhi District Court
Vide This Order vs Faire on 10 July, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH RAJ PAUL SINGH TEJI:
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE - 9 (Central)
TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 618995-16
SHRI NARESH KUMAR
S/o Sh Jaswant Rai
R/o CA/20, W.E.A,
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi- 110 005
Versus
SMT. PUNAM KADAM
W/o Sh Puran Chand
R/o 5A/11024, Second Floor,
Block No. 5A, Plot No. 165-166
W.E.A. Karol Bagh
New Delhi- 110 005
O R D E R
1.Vide this order, I shall dispose off the application Under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed a suit for possession, recovery of rent/damages for use and occupation charges against the defendant in respect of entire second floor, forming part of the property bearing No. 5A/11024, Block No.5A, Plot Np/ 165-166, W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 110 005. It is the case of plaintiff that defendant was inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit property and a lease deed was executed for creation of the tenancy in favour of the defendant for a period of two years commencing from 11.10.2015 at a monthly rent of Rs. 35,000/- excluding electricity and water charges. It has been stated that defendant had not paid the rent since November 2015 inspite of various requests and demands. It has been further stated that after great persuasion, the defendant handed over one cheque bearing Page 1 of 10 No. 285222 dated 29.12.2015 amounting to Rs. 70,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Bank Street, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 110 005 but the same was dishonoured and returned by the banker of defendant with the remarks "Account Blocked" vide memo dated 08.01.2016. It has been further stated that on receipt of the dishonour cheque, plaintiff made a demand in cash in respect of dishonour cheque but the defendant avoided to do so on one pretext or the other. It has been further stated that thereafter plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 18.01.2016 demanding the amount of dishonour cheque and also terminated the tenancy of the defendant in terms of Clause-19 of the Lease Deed dated 08.10.2015. It has been further stated that legal notice was duly served upon the defendant but inspite of service of the same, the defendant neither complied with the terms of legal notice nor vacated the suit premises. It has been further stated that the defendant has also failed to clear the outstanding amount towards electricity and water charges. It has been further stated that the plaintiff has also filed a criminal complaint before the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi under Section 138 N.I. Act against the defendant. It has been further stated that defendant has also failed to pay or tender the arrears of rent/used and occupation charges at the agreed rate of Rs. 35,000/- per month w.e.f. 11.10.2015 till date. On these ground, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent/damages for use and occupation charges @ Rs. 35,000/- per month against the defendant.
3. Written statement filed by the defendant wherein the defendant has taken preliminery objections that the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts and hence plaint is liable to be dismissed. It has been further averred that suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as plaintiff has not filed the suit according to the provision prescribed in Civil Procedure Code and liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It has been further averred that defendant was regularly paying the rent of the suit premises to the plaintiff time to time but the plaintiff never issued any rent receipt to the defendant despite repeated requests and demands Page 2 of 10 of the defendant. It has been further stated that at the time of letting out the suit premises, the defendant has given a security signed blank cheque, Rs. 70,000/- in cash as security amount and also given Rs. 35,000/- in cash as one month advance rent to the plaintiff. It has been further averred that plaintiff himself disconnected the electricity and water connection of the suit premises due to which the defendant is facing many problems. It has been further averred that the allegations levelled against the answering defendant are totally baseless, false and the present case has only been filed to pressurize the answering defendant to vacate the suit premises. In para-wise reply, defendant has denied the contents of para No. 2 to 13. It is stated that the defendant had given the cheque as security at the time of taking the suit premises on rent. It is further stated that defendant was regularly paying the rent to the plaintiff month by month and plaintiff intentionally did not issue any rent receipt to the defendant despite repeated demands and requests. It is also stated that plaintiff sent a false and frivolous legal notice to the defendant only to make pressure upon the defendant. It is further stated that plaintiff has filed false and frivolous complaint case U/s 138 N.I. Act against the defendant only to harass and humiliate the defendant. Rest of the contents of the plaint have been denied by the defendant in the written statement.
4. The plaintiff has filed the present application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing of decree of possession against the defendant on the basis of the admissions made by the defendant in the written statement. Plaintiff has relied upon the registered lease deed dated 08.10.2015 and there is no specific denial regarding its execution and creation of tenancy on the basis of terms and conditions reduced into writing in the said lease deed. It has been averred by the plaintiff in the application that in the written statement defendant has himself admitted that at the time of letting out the suit premises, she has given a security signed blank cheque, Rs. 70,000/- in cash as security amount and also given Rs. 35,000/- in cash as one month advance rent to the plaintiff. It has been further stated by the plaintiff in the application that in fact the defendant Page 3 of 10 has paid a sum of Rs. 35,000/- in cash as one month advance rent and also paid Rs. 70,000/- towards security amount as per Clause 25 of the registered lease deed. So far as the cheque amounting to Rs. 70,000/- issued by the defendant is concerned, it has been averred that the said cheque bearing No. 285222 dated 29.12.2015 was issued in order to discharge his legal liability for payment of two months rent covering the period i.e. 11.11.2015 to 10.01.2016, however the said cheque was dishonoured on its presentation for which a complaint U/s 138 N.I. Act is pending adjudication in the court of Ld. M.M. It has been further averred in the application that after the dishonour of the cheque, plaintiff has made a demand towards the payment of dishonour cheque but the defendant avoided to do so and as such a legal notice dated 18.01.2016 was got issued demanding the amount of dishonour cheque and also terminated the tenancy in terms of Clause-18 of the Lease deed dated 08.10.2015. It has been averred that there is no specific denial in the written statement that aforesaid said cheque was not issued covering the period for two months rent or that for which a legal notice of demand was duly served. It has been further averred in the application that defendant has not even paid the arrears of electricity for which a BSES had issued a notice under Section 56 of Electricity Act dated 24.02.2016. It has been further averred that defendant in order to discharge her legal obligations issued a cheque in respect of the electricity dues in favour of BYPL which too was dishonoured with the remarks" account blocked". It has been averred by the plaintiff that there is no specific denial in the written statement by the defendant that she was not inducted as tenant in respect of the tenanted premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 35,000/- per month and terms of tenancy was reduced in writing by registered lease deed dated 08.10.2015. It has been further averred that there is no specific denial that tenancy was not terminated by legal notice dated 18.01.2016. On these grounds, it has been prayed that present application may be allowed and decree for possession of suit premises may kindly be passed under Order 12 Rule 6 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Page 4 of 105. Reply to the application has been filed by the defendant. In the reply the defendant took similar objections, as taken in the written statement. It has been further stated that defendant has not made any admission in suit and that plaintiff has wrongly interpreted the para No. 6 of the written statement for his own benefit just to cause wrongful loss to the defendant. It has been further stated that defendant has not violated the terms and conditions of lease deed which is to expire on 10.10.2017. It has been submitted that application filed by the plaintiff for pronouncement of judgment on admission is false and frivolous and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has argued that there is clear and unequivocal admission by the defendant in the written statement filed before this court wherein the defendant has in unequivocal terms admitted the execution of registered lease deed dt. 08.10.2015 , rate of rent which is Rs.35,000/ per month as per the lease and receipt of legal notice of termination dated 18.01.2016. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has prayed for the decree of possession of the suit property on the basis of the admissions of the defendant.
7. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the defendant has submitted that defendant has not made any admission and that plaintiff has wrongly interpreted the para No. 6 of the written statement. He has further submitted that defendant has never violated the terms and conditions of lease deed and that defendant was regularly paying the rent of the suit premises to the plaintiff but the plaintiff never issued any rent receipt to the defendant. He has submitted that present application is false and frivolous and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have carefully gone through the entire material available on record and heard the rival submissions of both the Ld. Counsels for the parties. I have also carefully perused the material available on record.
9. Before adverting any opinion, let us examine the scope of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. Order 12 Rule 6 lays provision for judgment on admission.
Page 5 of 10'6. Judgment on admissions.(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleadings 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.
(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.'
10. The scope and ambit of Order 12 Rule 6, CPC was discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India, reported as VI (2000) SLT87=III (2000) CLT 299 (SC)= AIR 2000 SC 2740. In the aforesaid case, the supreme Court observed as under :
"Para 12. As to the object of the order 12 Rule 6, we need not say anything more than what the Legislature itself has said when the said provision came to be amended. In the objects and reasons set out while amending the said rule, 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 the rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled'. We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the fact of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed."
In another case RFA (OS) No. 1/2005 titled as Mr. Prem Narain Misra Vs. Faire Brothers Export and Import Ltd. decided on July 12 2007, it was observed by our own Hon'ble High Court in para 17 :
Page 6 of 10"The very objective and purpose of enacting the provision like Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is to enable the Court to pronounce the judgments on admission when the admissions are sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to get a decree. Such a provision is enacted to render speedy judgments and save the parties from going through the rigmarole of a protracted trial. The admissions can be in the pleadings or otherwise, namely in documents, correspondence etc. These can be oral or in writing. The admissions can even be constructive admissions and need not be specific 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".
10.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as Payal Vision Ltd. Vs. Radhika Choudhary (2012) 11 Supreme Court Cases 405 has held in para 7 that: "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 Property Act. So long as these two aspects are not in dispute the court can pass a decree in terms of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
In para 8, it has been held that : "8.The above sufficiently empowers the court trying the suit to deliver judgment based on admissions whenever such admissions are sufficient for the grant of the relief prayed for. Whether or not there was an unequivocal and clear admission on either of the two aspects to which we have referred above and which are relevant to a suit for possession against a tenant is, therefore, the only question that falls for determination in this case and in every other case where the plaintiff seeks to invoke the powers of the court under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and prays for passing of the decree on the basis of admission. Having said that we must add that whether or not there is a clear admission upon the two aspects noted above is a matter to be seen in Page 7 of 10 the fact situation prevailing in each case. Admission made on the basis of pleadings in a given case cannot obviously be taken as an admission in a different fact situation. That precisely is the view taken by this Court in Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. relied upon by the High Court where this Court has observed: (SCC p. 604, para 10) '10. ......Whether or not there is a clear, unambiguous admission by one party of the case of the other party is essentially a question of fact and the decision of this question depends on the facts of the case.
11. In the light of the law laid down with respect to the ambit and scope of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, let us examine whether the averments made by the defendant in the written statement amounts to admissions or whether the decree on the admissions of the defendant can be passed.
12. In a suit for possession, what is required to be seen is that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, tenancy in respect of the premises comes to end by efflux of time or by issuance of notice of termination and the rate of rent of the suit property is more than Rs.3,500/ per month i.e. beyond the preview of DRC.
13. The case of plaintiff is that defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 35,000/- vide lease deed dated 08.10.2015 executed between the plaintiff and the defendant. So far as relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is concerned, defendant in para 6 of the preliminary objections has admitted that "at the time of letting out the suit premises, the defendant has given a security signed blank cheque, Rs. 70,000/- in cash as security amount and also given Rs. 35,000/- in cash as one month advance rent to the plaintiff". Though in his written statement defendant has taken several preliminary objections but the same are quite vague in nature and there are no specific denials of the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint. Thus, it is clear that the defendant has admitted that the lease dated 08.10.2015 was executed between him and the plaintiff.
Page 8 of 10Accordingly, the relationship of landlord and tenant stands established.
14. As regards to the plea of defendant that he had given a blank cheque to the plaintiff as security, plaintiff has stated that cheque amounting to Rs. 70,000/- was issued by the defendant in order to discharge his legal liability for payment of two months rent covering the period i.e. 11.11.2015 to 10.01.2016, however the said cheque was dishonoured on its presentation for which a complaint U/s 138 N.I. Act is pending adjudication in the court of Ld. M.M. Plaintiff has also taken a stand that after the dishonour of the cheque, he has made a demand towards the payment of dishonour cheque but the defendant avoided to do so and as such a legal notice dated 18.01.2016 was got issued demanding the amount of dishonour cheque and also terminated the tenancy in terms of Clause-18 of the Lease deed dated 08.10.2015. I would like to mention here that as regards to the legal notice, defendant in the written statement has stated "plaintiff himself created false grounds and also narrated the false story to his counsel with malafide intention to create false evidence against the defendant and thereafter the plaintiff sent a false and frivolous legal notice to the defendant only to make pressure upon the defendant. From the above, it is clear that there is no specific denial of receipt of legal notice vide which the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by the plaintiff. There is also no specific denial in the written statement that cheque of Rs. 70,000/- was not issued qua two months rent.
15. From the discussion above, the following facts are clear: a) Relationship of landlord and tenant stands proved b) Rate of rent of Rs.35,000/ per month stands proved which is beyond the purview of Delhi Rent Control Act; Lease dated 08.10.2015 for two years in respect of the suit property has come to an end by a valid notice dated 18.01.2016 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant vide which tenancy was terminated in terms of clause-18 of the lease deed.
16. In view of the discussion and observations made herein above, the application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC moved by the plaintiff Page 9 of 10 deserves to be allowed and the plaintiff is entitled for judgment regarding the relief of possession of the suit property on admissions made by the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit property from the defendant and the defendant is directed to handover and deliver the actual, physical, vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property in possession of the defendant after the expiry of statutory period of appeal. Decree sheet shall be drawn in accordance with this order passed today.
17. For the remaining reliefs as prayed in the suit, the plaintiff has to prove the case in accordance with the law during the trial.
Announced in Open Court (RAJ PAUL SINGH TEJI)
on 10-07-2017 Addl. District Judge-09 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts
Page 10 of 10