Delhi District Court
Sushma Arora vs Tavneet Singh on 31 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK:
DISTRICT JUDGE-06, WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 371/22
CNR NO.DLWT01-003871-2022
IN THE MATTER OF :
SUSHMA ARORA
W/O SH RAMESH ARORA
R/O WZ-22B, UGGARSAIN MARKET
ASHOK NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110018
MOBILE NO. 9717712614
E-MAIL: [email protected]
..........PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
TAVNEET SINGH
S/O SH HARPAL SINGH
PROPRIETOR: M/S OPTOMART
27/5, TEHAR-II, ASHOK NAGAR
NEW DELHI-110018
MOBILE NO.999984768
..........DEFENDANT
DATE OF INSTITUTION OF SUIT : 27.04.2022
DATE OF ARGUMENTS : 17.05.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 31.05.2024
DECISION : SUIT DECREED
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit by an owner/landlord against her tenant for the CS No.371/22 Sushma Arora vs. Tavneet Singh Page 1 of 18 recovery of possession, permanent & mandatory injunction, arrears of rent, damages and mesne profit.
2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the plaint, are; A) Plaintiff Smt. Sushma Arora is a senior citizen and owner of a shop in the property bearing No. 27/5, Double Storey, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-110018 (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'). Plaintiff inducted defendant Tavneet Singh as a tenant in the suit property for a limited period of three years after executing a registered lease deed dated 18.03.2019. In terms of the lease deed, it was agreed upon that the tenancy would commence on 25.03.2019 and would come to an end on 24.03.2022.
B) Parties agreed that for the first year, the rent of the property would be Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) and it would be enhanced by 10% each successive year. Defendant deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with the plaintiff as interest free security deposit refundable at the time of termination of tenancy and also handed over 15 post-dated cheques towards the monthly rent. Plaintiff claims that out of these cheques, 11 cheques were presented and duly honoured but the remaining 04 cheques were not presented on the instructions of the defendant.
C) It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant stopped paying the rent from the month of February, 2020 onwards. Plaintiff has alleged that out of the total outstanding rent, defendant made certain part payments but at the time of filing of the suit, he was in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 5,70,250/- (Rupees Five Lakh Seventy Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only). Plaintiff has claimed that the CS No.371/22 Sushma Arora vs. Tavneet Singh Page 2 of 18 tenancy expired on 24.03.2022 by the efflux of time. She issued a legal notice dated 29.03.2022 to the defendant demanding the possession of the suit property but he failed to do so. Hence, the present suit.
D) Plaintiff claims that the rent deed contained a provision that in case, defendant failed to hand over the possession after the termination of tenancy, he would be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- per day, as damages, in addition to the monthly rent. Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking possession of the suit property, arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits.
3. Defendant was served through ordinary process. Defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement. He admitted the lease agreement as well as the service of legal notice. He claimed that he invested a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in the suit property for giving it the shape of a showroom. He mentioned that at the time of registration of lease deed, he entered into an oral understanding with the plaintiff under which it was decided that he would be allowed to retain the possession of the suit property for a period of five years. He claimed that it was orally agreed that plaintiff would be liable to pay him a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only), in case, he insists on taking over the possession of the suit property before a period of five years. He mentioned that plaintiff is also liable to refund the amount invested by him in making improvements in the suit property. He denied being in arrears of rent. He claimed that he has been regularly paying the rent and no rent remains outstanding. He prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
CS No.371/22 Sushma Arora vs. Tavneet Singh Page 3 of 184. Pleadings completed. During the course of proceedings, plaintiff filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC claiming that defendant has made material admissions and the suit may be decreed. Defendant opposed the said prayer by filing reply to the said application.
5. Arguments were heard.
6. Counsel for the defendant argued that the suit is not liable to be decreed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. He contended that in order to decree a suit on admissions, the admissions should be absolute and unequivocal. He argued that the defendant invested a substantial sum of money in the suit property for giving it the shape of a showroom. He mentioned that plaintiff has not returned the said amount. He contended that plaintiff can not insist on taking back the possession of the suit property without returning the said amount. He mentioned that at the time of inception of tenancy, parties entered into an oral understanding wherein it was decided that defendant would be entitled to retain the possession for a period of five years. He stated that it was decided that plaintiff would be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the defendant, in case, he gets the property vacated before the said period. He contended that the judgment on admission is not a matter of right but a matter of discretion of the court. He argued that the issues raised by the defendant go to the root of the matter and it would not be proper to decree the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. He submitted that the lease of the property was determined by forfeiture on account of CS No.371/22 Sushma Arora vs. Tavneet Singh Page 4 of 18 non-payment of rent. He mentioned that defendant had been regularly paying the rent to the plaintiff. He contended that upto date rent has been paid by the defendant and therefore, plaintiff is entitled to get the benefit under Section 114 of The Transfer of Property Act. He prayed that the application may be dismissed and the matter may be put to trial. In order to support his contentions, counsel for the defendant placed reliance on the judgments; (a) Inder Mohan Singh & Ors Vs. Sube Singh, 215(2014) DLT 168; (b) S M Asif Vs Virender Kumar Bajaj, Civil Appeal No.6106-6108 of 2015 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; (c) Karan Kapoor Vs Madhuri Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 4545/2022 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; (d) Krishna Kumari Vs. Sunil Kumar Goel & anr. 214 (2014)DLT404 and; (e) State Bank of India Vs. Midland Industries and Ors, 1988 AIR(Del).
7. On the other hand, counsel for the plaintiff argued that defendant has made clear, unequivocal, unambiguous and unconditional admissions in the written statement. He contended that defendant has admitted the lease deed as well as the service of legal notice of termination of tenancy. He mentioned that defendant has admitted that he is a tenant in the suit property. He argued that defendant has made false submissions about investing a substantial sum of money in making improvements in the suit property. He contended that the submissions that the parties arrived at an oral understanding about the lock-in period of five years are false. He mentioned that defendant has raised false and bogus pleas. He mentioned that the tenancy expired due to efflux of time and the same was duly CS No.371/22 Sushma Arora vs. Tavneet Singh Page 5 of 18 terminated by means of a legal notice. He mentioned that the submissions of the defendant that the lease was determined on account of forfeiture are erroneous. He mentioned that the plaintiff can not claim the benefit under Section 114 of The Transfer of Property Act. He prayed that the suit may be decreed. In order to support the arguments, counsel placed reliance on the judgments; (a) Deepak Jain Vs. Kamal Garg, 2016 LAWPACK (Delhi) 60539; (b) Uberoisons (Machines) Ltd. Vs. Samtel Color Ltd, 2003 LAWPACK(Del); (c) Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India,2000 AIR (SC) 2740 and; (d) Payal Vision Ltd. Vs Radhika Choudhary, 2012 LAWPACK (SC) 51566.
8. I have perused the record in the light of respective arguments.
9. Record shows that defendant has made clear and unequivocal admissions in the written statement. He has admitted the landlord and tenant relationship. There are admissions in para no.15 of the preliminary objections as well as para no.3 of the reply on merits of the written statement. Defendant admitted the service of legal notice in para no.23 of the para-wise reply on merits of the written statement. He came up with a version that although a registered lease agreement was executed but it was agreed upon by the parties that the tenancy shall continue for a period of five years. He mentioned that plaintiff orally agreed that he would be liable to pay him a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, in case, he gets the property vacated before a period of five years. He has further raised a plea that plaintiff is liable to repay him a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as the said CS No.371/22 Sushma Arora vs. Tavneet Singh Page 6 of 18 amount was invested by him in converting the property into a showroom. On appreciating the record in the matter of backdrop of the pleas raised by the defendant, it becomes apparent that he has raised false and bogus pleas. None of the pleas raised by him is legally sustainable.
10. I have gone through the judgments relied on by the defendant. Defendant has placed strong reliance on the decision by the High Court of Delhi in the matter of "Payal Vision Ltd. Vs Radhika Chaudhary"(Supra). The ratio of the judgment delivered in the said matter does not support the defendant's case. Rather, it demolishes his argument that he can retain the possession of the property until the plaintiff refunds the amount invested by him on the improvement of the suit property. It has been observed in Payal Vision's case (Supra) that in a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant, all that is required to be established is the existence of landlord tenant relationship and the termination of tenancy either by lapse of time or by means of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The observations made in the matter as under:
"6. 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, CS No.371/22 Sushma Arora vs. Tavneet Singh Page 7 of 18 which reads as under:
"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.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-
rule (1) a decree shall be drawn upon in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.
7. 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 XII Rule 6 of the 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 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."
11. It has been held in "Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. Vs Union Bank of India and Ors." AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2740 that discretion under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC can be exercised by the CS No.371/22 Sushma Arora vs. Tavneet Singh Page 8 of 18 court even in the absence of an application. The observation made in the matter are as under:
"12. As to the object of the Order XII, 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 face of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed. Textually, there is nothing in Order 12 Rule 6 which limits the powers of the Court to await the application of the party seeking a decree. A decree can be conveniently and expeditiously drawn even in the absence of an application by the party seeking it and if the requisite condition spelt out in the provision exists."
12.It has been held in "Amit Kumar Vs Amit Kumar" FAO (OS) 589/2015 NCM No.24212/2015, decided on 23.11.2015 by a Division Bench of High Court of Delhi that the court while considering the applicability of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC has to consider whether the so called defence raised by the defendant is plausible or is completely sham. It was observed that merely because the defendant denies the claim of the plaintiff, it would not ipso facto imply that there is a defence raised by the plaintiff that CS No.371/22 Sushma Arora vs. Tavneet Singh Page 9 of 18 requires framing of issues and relegating the parties to trial. It was held that merely because defendant raises some dispute, it cannot be said that there is no unequivocal admission. It was observed in Uttam Singh Duggal & Company Ltd.'s case (supra) that no trial is required in the matter where the defence raised is a moonshine.
13.In the matter of "Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kavit P. Lalwani" 2012 (191) DLT 594, the High Court of Delhi laid down broad principles for dealing with a suit for ejectment filed by a landlord against the tenant, which are as under:
"26.1 Upon expiry of the term of the lease or on termination of the monthly lease by a notice to quit, the lessee must vacate the property on his own and not wait for the lessor to bring a suit where he can raise all kinds of contests in order to profit from Court delays.
26.2 Expiry of lease by efflux of time results in the determination of the relationship between the lessor and the lessee and no notice of determination of the lease is required. Mere acceptance of rent by the landlord from the tenant in possession after the lease has been determined either by efflux of time or by notice to quit would not create a tenancy so as to confer on the erstwhile tenant the status of a tenant or a right to be in possession.
26.3 Notice of termination of lease under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act sent by registered post to the tenant is deemed to be served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
26.4 The object of the termination notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is to communicate the intention of the landlord that he wants the premises back CS No.371/22 Sushma Arora vs. Tavneet Singh Page 10 of 18 and to give 15 days time to vacate. Such notice is not a pleading but a mere communication of the intention of the recipient. Such notice is to be liberally construed as the tenants only right is to get notice of 15 days to vacate. The tenant is under a statutory obligation to vacate the subject property on the expiry of 15 days of the notice.
26.5 A suit for ejectment is different from a title suit for possession against a trespasser. In a suit for possession against a trespasser, title can be in dispute but in a suit for ejectment against an erstwhile tenant, ordinarily there is no dispute of title as the tenant is estopped from denying the landlords title under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. The dispute is generally on two counts; one, about the assent to continue after the expiry of the fixed term lease by efflux of time and second, about the valid termination in case of monthly lease. The tenant resisting the claim for possession has to plead with sufficiently detailed pleadings, particulars and documents why he must not be ejected and what right he has to continue in possession. There is really nothing else to be tried in such a suit. A suit of this nature can ordinarily be decided on first hearing itself either on the pleadings and the documents or, if need be, by examining the parties under Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act.
26.7 The pleadings are the foundation of litigation and must set-forth sufficient factual details. Experience has shown that all kinds of pleadings are introduced and even false and fabricated documents are filed in civil cases because there is an inherent profit in continuation of possession. In a suit for ejectment, it is necessary for the defendant to plead specifically as to the basis on which he is claiming a right to continue in possession. A defendant has to show a subsisting right to continue as a lessee. No issue arises on vague pleadings.
26.12 The purpose of Order XII Rule 6 CPC is to give the CS No.371/22 Sushma Arora vs. Tavneet Singh Page 11 of 18 plaintiff a right to speedy judgment. The thrust of amendment of Order XII Rule 6 is that in an appropriate case a party on the admission of the other party can press for judgment as a matter of legal right. If a dishonest litigant is permitted to delay the judgment on the ground that he would show during the trial that he had not received the notice, the very purpose of the amendment would be frustrated.
26.15 There is a flood of litigation unnecessarily burdening the Courts only because obdurate tenants refuse to vacate the tenanted premises even after their tenancy period expires by efflux of time or the monthly tenancy has been brought to an end by service of a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It has become quite common for the tenants whose tenancy has been terminated to continue the occupation to drive the landlords to file suits for possession and mesne profits and thereafter raise false claims and defences to continue the possession of the premises. The motivation of the tenant to litigate with the landlord is that he wants to continue the occupation on payment of rent fixed years ago. The continuation of possession in such cases should therefore be permitted upon payment of market rent. In that case, inherent intent of the unscrupulous tenant to continue frivolous litigation would be reduced to a large extent."
14.Coming to the facts of the present case. Defendant has admitted the landlord and tenant relationship. From the pleadings of the parties and other material placed on record, there remains no scope for doubt that defendant has admitted the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. The admissions made by the defendant are unequivocal. Coming to the aspect of termination of tenancy, it is an admitted case of the parties that defendant was inducted as a tenant for a limited period of time. Defendant has admitted in the written statement that CS No.371/22 Sushma Arora vs. Tavneet Singh Page 12 of 18 he executed the lease deed dated 18.03.2019. The lease deed was for a limited period of 03 years. It was recorded in the lease deed that tenancy would commence on 25.03.2019 and would end automatically on 24.03.2022. The lease deed was duly registered.
15.It is evident from the record that the tenancy expired by efflux of time and thereafter, plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant demanding the possession of the rented property. The contention of the defendant that plaintiff orally agreed not to take back the possession from him before five years is not legally sustainable. It is a settled preposition that in case parties have entered into a contract, their respective rights and obligations shall be governed by the terms and conditions contained in the contract. No oral evidence can be given to vary the terms of the contract. In view of this, the contention of the defendant that at the time of registration of the lease deed, plaintiff varied an express condition of the lease deed pertaining to its duration does not hold ground.
16.The argument of the defendant about the applicability of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is based on erroneous interpretation of the said provision. In the present matter, the lease was determined by efflux of time and not on account of forfeiture. None of the conditions, mentioned in Section 111 (g) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, were existing in the present case. Similarly, there is no content in the argument of the defendant that he is entitled to retain the possession merely because the plaintiff accepted the payment of rent after the determination of the lease. Mere acceptance CS No.371/22 Sushma Arora vs. Tavneet Singh Page 13 of 18 of rent by the landlord from the tenant in possession after the lease has been determined either by efflux of time or by notice to quit would not create a tenancy so as to confer on the erstwhile tenant the status of a tenant or a right to be in possession.
17.The plea taken by the defendant that plaintiff is obligated to return the amount invested by him on the improvement of the suit property can not be considered as a defence in a suit for ejectment. Defendant has neither filed any counter claim nor has he claimed set off in respect of the alleged amount. No tenant can resist a suit for eviction on such baseless grounds. Such baseless and false pleas deserve outright rejection.
18.It has been held in the matter of "Pradeep Khanna Vs Renu Khetrapal" (RFA No.638/2014, decided by the High Court of Delhi on 10.04.2015) that a tenant, whose tenancy has been terminated, should not be allowed to continue to occupy the premises on the basis of bogus and false defence. In this matter, the High Court cited with approval various case laws which are squarely applicable in the facts & circumstances of the present case. Some of the decisions cited by the High Court of Delhi are;
"20.1 In 'Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria', the Supreme Court held that false claims and defences are serious problems with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever escalating prices of the real estate. The Supreme Court held as under:-
"False claims and false defences"
84. False claims and defences are really serious problems with real estate litigation, CS No.371/22 Sushma Arora vs. Tavneet Singh Page 14 of 18 predominantly because of ever escalating prices of the real estate. Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party will tire out and ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge amount. This happens because of the enormous delay in adjudication of cases in our Courts. If pragmatic approach is adopted, then this problem can be minimized to a large extent."
20.2 In 'Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010)' 2 SCC 114, the Supreme Court observed that a new creed of litigants have cropped up in the last 40 years who do not have any respect for truth and shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. The observations of the Supreme Court are as under:-
"1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., 'Satya' (truth) and 'Ahimsa' (non- violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice- delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences.
However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.
2. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this CS No.371/22 Sushma Arora vs. Tavneet Singh Page 15 of 18 creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final."
(Emphasis supplied) 20.3 In 'Satyender Singh v. Gulab Singh' 2012 (129) DRJ 128, the Division Bench of this Court following Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (supra) observed that the Courts are flooded with litigation with false and incoherent pleas and tainted evidence led by the parties due to which the judicial system in the country is choked and such litigants are consuming Courts' time for a wrong cause.
The observations of this Court are as under:-
"2. As rightly observed by the Supreme Court, Satya is a basic value of life which was required to be followed by everybody and is recognized since many centuries. In spite of caution, courts are continued to be flooded with litigation with false and incoherent pleas and tainted evidence led by the parties. The judicial system in the country is choked and such litigants are consuming courts time for a wrong cause. Efforts are made by the parties to steal a march over their rivals by resorting to false and incoherent statements made before the Court. Indeed, it is a nightmare faced by a Trier of Facts; required to stitch a garment, when confronted with a fabric where the weft, shuttling back and forth across the warp in weaving, is nothing but lies. As the threads of the weft fall, the yarn of CS No.371/22 Sushma Arora vs. Tavneet Singh Page 16 of 18 the warp also collapses; and there is no fabric left."
(Emphasis supplied) 20.4 In 'State Bank of Patiala v. Chander Mohan Jain' 1996 RLR 404, the Division Bench of this Court observed that it has become quite common for tenants whose tenancies have been terminated to continue occupation as trespassers and drive the landlords to file suit for eviction and profits with a view to see how far the patience of the landlords may last. The observation of this Court is reproduced hereunder:-
"24. ....It has become quite common for tenants, whose tenancies have been terminated validly, to continue occupation as trespassers, drive the landlords to file suits for eviction and profits with a view to see how far the patience of the landlords may last or how far the landlords or their legal representatives could fight the tenants- particularly if the tenant had stopped payment of admitted rents. It is rather unfortunate that even public sector bodies like the appellant are taking such postures and driving landlords from pillar to post..."
19.Record demonstrate that on the determination of the tenancy by efflux of time, plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant demanding the possession of the suit property as well as the arrears of rent. Defendant has not handed over the possession and he continues to occupy the suit property. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that he is not pressing for the arrears of the rent and suit may be partially decreed qua the relief of recovery of possession. I am of the considered opinion that defendant has made clear and unequivocal admissions in the written statement. The relationship of CS No.371/22 Sushma Arora vs. Tavneet Singh Page 17 of 18 landlord and tenant is admitted. The service of legal notice is also admitted. The pleas raised by the defendant are not legally sustainable. The object of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is to enable a party to obtain a speedy judgment on the basis of the admissions made by the defendants. This appears to be an apt case where the discretion vested in the court under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC should be exercised. In view of unequivocal admissions in the written statement, it is impossible for the defendant to defend the plaintiff's claim even if the matter is put to trial. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.
20.In the light of discussions made in the afore-mentioned paras, the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is allowed and the suit is partially decreed with a decree of possession of suit property i.e a shop in the property bearing No. 27/5, Double Storey, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-110018, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
21.Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in open Court on 31.05.2024 (Sudhanshu Kaushik) District Judge-06 West District, THC Delhi/31.05.2024 CS No.371/22 Sushma Arora vs. Tavneet Singh Page 18 of 18