Delhi District Court
M/S Mithi Interiors Pvt. Ltd vs Sh. Hardev Singh on 5 February, 2010
Civil Suit No.: 224/09
IN THE COURT OF JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (CENTRAL) 12, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
Civil Suit No.: 224/09
M/s Mithi Interiors Pvt. Ltd.
(A Company registered under the
Companies Act) having its
registered Office at 70,
Manjil Apartment,
Plot no. 7, Sector9
Dwarka, New Delhi75
Through its Director/
Authorized representative
Sh. Mithilesh Jha
...............Plaintiff
Versus
1 Sh. Hardev Singh
S/o Sh. Gurmeet Singh,
R/o Flat No. 375,
Sector13, PKTB,
Dwarka, New Delhi75
Also At;
Estate Manager
Nehru Place Hotels Ltd.
Page 1
Civil Suit No.: 224/09
Eros Cooperate Towers
Nehru Place, New Delhi19
2 Sh. Gurmeet Singh
Son of not known
3 Smt. Gurmeet Singh
W/o Sh. Gurmeet Singh
Both Resident of Flat No. 92,
Third Floor, Sector9
Pkt, Dwarka, New Delhi75
.........Defendants
Date of institution of the suit : 08.02.08
Date of filing of application U/O 12 R. 6 CPC: 15.07.09
Reserved for judgment on appl. U/O 12 R. 6 CPC : 21.01.10
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 05.02.10
SUIT FOR RECOVERY, MESNE PROFIT/
DAMAGES AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1 This is a suit for recovery of possession and damages/mesne profits filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. Brief of the facts as set out in the plaint are : Page 2 Civil Suit No.: 224/09
(a) Plaintiff is dealing in the business of consultancy and project management of interior products. Plaintiff needed a place/flat for accommodation for its staff and officials. Defendant no. 1 approached the plaintiff with intention of offering to sell his flat bearing no. 92, Third Floor, Sector9, Pocket1, Dwarka, New Delhi75 ;
(b) Plaintiff agreed to purchase the aforesaid suit premises form defendant no. 1 at Rs.30,00,000/. Thereafter, sale deed was executed on 30.07.07 by defendant no. 1 in favour of plaintiff after receiving full and total consideration. The plaintiff took a loan from ICICI Bank for the purchase of the suit Page 3 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 premises ;
(c ) Defendant no. 1 also handed over legal and physical possession of the said premises to the plaintiff along with the keys of the flat to the plaintiff at the same time ;
(d) Thereafter, plaintiff through its Director visited the aforesaid premises and saw few luggage in one room of the flat. Plaintiff asked defendant no. 1 about this luggage then defendant no. 1 requested the plaintiff to allow him to keep his luggage in this room of the flat for some more time as there was paucity of space in the new flat in which defendant no. 1 had shifted. On persistent requests of defendant no. 1 he was Page 4 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 conditionally allowed. Defendant no. 1 agreed to pay the user charges and damages and interest and further agreed to vacate the said one room i.e. suit premises on or before 30.09.07. The bank interest of Rs. 25,000/ per month was agreed to be fixed as user charges to be paid by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff and Rs.3,75,000/ towards consolidated damages for vacating upon execution of sale deed. It was assured to vacate the suit premises by 30.09.2007. On the expiry of nd this period on 2 October, 07, the plaintiff through its director visited the suit premises and was shocked to see that the main entry Page 5 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 of the said flat was opened and defendant no. 2 and 3 was living in the suit premises. However, locks of the other rooms and portion of the suit premises were intact ;
(e) Plaintiff tried to contact defendant no.1 but he avoided to meet the plaintiff. Later on, defendant no. 1 met the plaintiff and stated that defendant no. 2 and 3 are his parents. It is stated that occupation of defendants no. 2 and 3 through defendant no. 1 is totally illegal, unauthorized and permission to occupy the suit premises was expired by efflux of time on 30.09.07 and alternatively on 26.11.2007 by issuance of the legal notice. Now the defendants are Page 6 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 trespassers in the suit premises.
2 Written statement filed by defendant no. 1 wherein it is stated that sale deed was executed in favour of plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/. However, it is stated that at the time of initial bargain with regard to the sale of the property, it was brought to the knowledge of the plaintiff that parents of defendant no. 1 i.e. defendants no. 2 and 3 were also residing in one room of the property and upon the request of defendants no. 2 and 3, the plaintiff agreed to keep them as tenants for a period of two months in one room @ Rs. 1,000/ per month excluding electricity and other charges and further agreed to provide them a separate accommodation after a period of two months. It is admitted that possession of the portion of suit property was given to the plaintiff. It is further stated that the luggage in one room of the flat belongs to defendants no. 2 Page 7 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 and 3 and the said room was rented to them by the plaintiff. Plaintiff and defendant no.1 entered into an agreement and thereafter, defendant no. 1 had given a cheque of Rs.4,25,000/ as security to the plaintiff returnable after the period of 2 months when the alternate accommodation would be provided to defendants no. 2 and 3. However, alternative accommodation has not been provided by the plaintiff to defendant no. 1. It is further stated that defendant no. 1 has just stood as surety for defendants no. 2 and 3 and after signing of possession letter dated 29.09.07, defendant no.1 had no concern with suit property.
3 Written statement also filed by defendants no. 2 and 3 where all the averments made by the plaintiff were denied. It is stated that defendants no.2 and 3 are living in the suit property along with their younger son since it was purchased by Page 8 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 them from defendant no.1 and the entire amount was given by defendant no. 2 for purchase of the suit property. It is denied that defendants no.2 and 3 ever informed the plaintiff that defendant no.1 instructed them to occupy only one room. It is further denied that defendants no.2 and 3 ever took possession from the plaintiff to occupy the flat in question or defendants no. 2 and 3 are liable to pay any damage to the plaintiff. Rest of the contents of the plaint are also denied by defendants no. 2 and 3.
4 By application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC moved by the plaintiff, it is prayed that in view of the admissions made by the defendants in their written statements, the present suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
5 No reply to this application filed on behalf of Page 9 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 defendant no.1 and on 17.9.2009 his counsel Sh. Rahul Lather, Advocate stated that he did not want to file reply to this application and straightaway wanted to put his submissions. During the course of arguments, counsel for defendant no.1 submitted that defendant no.1 has no objection if relief of possession is allowed in favour of the plaintiff as defendant no.1 has already handed over the possession and executed possession letter in favour of the plaintiff. He further submitted that defendant no.1 has no dispute regarding the relief of possession with the plaintiff and in view of the submissions made by ld. counsel for defendant no.1, application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC qua the relief of possession was allowed against defendant no.1.
6 Reply filed by defendants no. 2 and 3 wherein defendants no. 2 and 3 took similar objections, as taken in the Page 10 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 written statement.
7 Statement under Order 10 CPC of defendant no. 2 was recorded by this court on 17.09.2009 where defendant no.2 stated that he has been cheated by his son only i.e. defendant no. 1 and not by the plaintiff as his son took the money from him and got purchased the suit property in his name. It is further stated that he came to know about this cheating/fraud on 28.9.07 when he came back to Delhi and entered into his house then he came to know that his son i.e. defendant no.1 vacated the property and had taken all the goods of defendant no.2. It is further stated by defendant no.2 that the plaintiff did not take away any of his goods or articles. It is further stated that defendant no. 2 never entered into any agreement with the plaintiff regarding the suit property. It is further stated that defendant no. 2 has no dispute with the Page 11 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 plaintiff and defendant no. 2 was never a tenant in the suit property as defendant no. 1 told defendant no. 2 that defendant no. 2 is owner of the suit property.
8 Arguments heard on this application as advanced by Sh. Puneet Bhatnagar, Advocate, counsel for the plaintiff, Sh. Rahul Lather, Advocate, counsel for defendant no.1 and Sh. J.M. Kalia, Advocate, counsel for defendants no.2 and 3. 9 In a judgment 155 (2008) DELHI LAW TIMES 431 titled as P.S. Batra v. S. Anoop Singh & Anr., it was observed by our own Hon'ble High Court in paras 7 to 10 :
"7. At the outset, it is necessary to highlight the object of including Rule 6 to the provision of Order 12 in the CPC, by way of an amendment. The said provision is reproduced below for ready reference :
Order 12. Admission Page 12 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 Rule 6.(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) Whether 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 of which the said judgment was pronounced."
Page 13 Civil Suit No.: 224/09
8. 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 Page 14 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 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."
9. In the case of ITDC Ltd. v. M/s.
Chander Pal Sood & Son reported in 84 (2000) DLT 337 DB, a Division Bench of this Court interpreted the provisions of Page 15 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 Order 12 Rule 6, CPC by holding as below:
"Para 17.......Order 12 Rule 6 of Code gives a very wide discretion to the Court. Under this rule the Court may at any stage of the suit either on the application or any party or of its own motion and without determination of any other question between the parties can make such order giving such judgment as it may think fit on the basis of admission of a fact made in the pleadings or otherwise whether orally or in writing......"
10. Another Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to interpret the expression 'otherwise' as used under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC in the case of Rajiv Srivastava v. Sanjiv Tuli and Anr., reported Page 16 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 as 119 (2005) DLT 202 (DB). It was observed as below :
"Para 10. The use of the expression 'otherwise' in the aforesaid context came to be interpreted by the Court. Considering the expression the Court had interpreted the said word by stating that it permits the Court to pass judgment on the basis of the statement made by the parties not only on the pleadings but also de hors the pleadings i.e. either in any document or even in the statement recorded in the Court. If one of the parties' statement is recorded under Order 10 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same is also a statement which elucidates matter in controversy. Any admission in such statement is relevant not only for the purpose of finding Page 17 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 out the real dispute between the parties but also to ascertain as to whether or not any dispute or controversy exists between the parties.
Admission if any is made by a party in the statement recorded, would be conclusive against him and the Court can proceed to pass judgment on the basis of the admission made therein............."
10 In another case No. : 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 :
"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 Page 18 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 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".
Page 19 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 11 In another case C.R.P. No. 119/2007 titled as Mr. P. L. Verma Versus State Bank of India and Anr. decided on September 10, 2008, it was observed by our own Hon'ble High Court in para 4 :
"4. In order to pass a decree of possession in respect of tenanted premises, the Court has only to ensure that the tenancy of the tenant stands terminated either by a valid notice or by efflux of time and there was relationship of landlord and tenant, nothing else is required to be proved."
12 In this case, application has already been allowed against defendant no.1. Now dispute regarding possession is only left with defendants no.2 and 3 who are husband and wife. In statement dated 17.09.2009 made before this court under Order 10 of CPC by defendant no.2, it is admitted by defendant Page 20 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 no.2 that he was cheated by his son i.e. defendant no.1 but not by the plaintiff who took money from him and got purchased the suit property in his name i.e. defendant no.1. It is further stated that he came to know about this cheating/fraud on 28.9.07 when he came back to Delhi and entered into his house. He further stated that criminal case has been filed by him for recovery of amount before the Hon'ble High Court. 13 Thus, it is admitted case of defendant no. 2 himself that the property was stood in the name of defendant no.1 and not in his name. A certified copy of Sale Deed executed on 30.07.2007 is available on the record. It is admitted case of the parties that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property after making payment of valuable consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/. Now the dispute is not between the plaintiff or any of the defendants but rather the defendants interse as stated Page 21 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 by defendant no.2 himself in his statement recorded on 17.09.2009. Thus, in these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled for decree for possession in view of the admissions made by the defendants themselves. 14 Ld. counsel for defendants no.2 and 3 relied upon judgment CDJ 2008 DHC 270 titled as Daljeet Singh Anand Versus Harjinder Singh Anand decided on 02.09.2008 and another judgment CDJ 2009 BHC 387 titled as M/s. Shantez Versus M/s. Applause Bhansali Films Private Limited Company decided on 17.03.2009.
15 However, these judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case especially when defendant no.1 does not contest the application and defendant no.2 himself stated before this court that dispute is not between him and the plaintiff but rather with defendant no.1.
Page 22 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 16 Ld. counsel for defendants no. 2 and 3 pointed out towards order dated 10.11.09 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CS (OS) No. 1356/2009 wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed :
"I have heard the learned counsel for parties. It is clarified that the District Court may proceed with the defendant no. 3's suit in its own way; however, if a final order is passed in the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC, it shall not be given effect, during the subsistence of the interim order passed in the present suit. Accordingly, order dated 29.07.2009 is made absolute. However, liberty is given to both parties to move the court for variation, if found necessary, in the event a final order is passed by the District Court in the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC filed in defendant no.3's Suit No. 46/2008."
17 Thus, there is no stay order regarding the final order on application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
Page 23 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 18 In view of the discussion and observations made herein above, this application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC moved by the plaintiff is allowed and the plaintiff is entitled for judgment on admissions made by the defendants. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit premises against the defendants whereby the defendants are directed to hand over and deliver actual, physical, vacant and peaceful possession of suit premises consists of one room rd of the premises i.e. Flat No. 92, 3 Floor, Sector9, Pocket1, Dwarka, New Delhi75 as shown more clearly in colour red in the site plan annexed herewith, along with common areas shown more clearly in colour yellow in the site plan along with all the fittings, fixtures, apparatus, electric fittings etc. annexed thereto and therein to the plaintiff. However, it is clarified that execution of decree shall be subjected to the order/judgment Page 24 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 passed by Hon'ble High Court in CS (OS) No. 1356/2009. 19 Decree sheet shall be drawn in accordance with this order passed by this court.
Announced in the Open Court today on : 05.02.2010 (Jitendra Kumar Mishra) ADJ (Central)12, Delhi Page 25 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 05.02.2010 Present None.
Ld. counsel for defendants no. 2 and 3 has already filed certified copy of order dated 10.11.09 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CS (OS) No. 1356/2009 wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed :
"I have heard the learned counsel for parties. It is clarified that the District Court may proceed with the defendant no. 3's suit in its own way; however, if a final order is passed in the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC, it shall not be given effect, during the subsistence of the interim order passed in the present suit. Accordingly, order dated 29.07.2009 is made absolute. However, liberty is given to both parties to move the court for variation, if found necessary, in the event a final order is passed by the District Court in the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of Page 26 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 the CPC filed in defendant no.3's Suit No. 46/2008."
Thus, there is no stay order regarding the final order on application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
Vide separate judgment passed in this case, application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC moved by the plaintiff is allowed and the plaintiff is entitled for judgment on admission made by the defendants. The defendants are directed to hand over and deliver actual, physical, vacant and peaceful possession of suit premises consists of one room of rd the premises i.e. Flat No. 92, 3 Floor, Sector9, Pocket1, Dwarka, New Delhi75 as shown more clearly in colour red in the site plan annexed herewith, along with common areas shown more clearly in colour yellow in the site plan along with all the fittings, fixtures, apparatus, electric fittings etc. annexed Page 27 Civil Suit No.: 224/09 thereto and therein to the plaintiff. Decree sheet shall be drawn in accordance with this order passed by this court. However, execution of decree shall be subjected to the order/judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court in CS (OS) No. 1356/2009.
Now to come up for admission/denial of documents and framing of issues on rest of the reliefs, as prayed by the plaintiff for 03.08.2010. Parties shall appear in person for the purpose of admission/denial of documents.
(Jitendra Kumar Mishra) ADJ (Central)12, Delhi 05.02.2010 Page 28