Delhi District Court
Sh. Ram Chander Arya vs Sh. Dalbir on 13 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF NAVEEN K. KASHYAP,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMRENTCOLLER, NORTH
WEST, ROHINI COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.
NEW CS. NO.66/18
Sh. Ram Chander Arya
S/O Sh. Naurang Singh
R/O. 1137/29, Gurudwara Colony
Rohtak Road, Jind, Haryana. ......Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Dalbir
S/o. Sh. Rohtash
R/o. Flat no. 101, Block A,
Khasra no. 155, V.K. Residency
Mohd. Pur Majri, Delhi81.
......Defendant
Date of Institution of the case : 17.01.2018
Date of decision : 13.04.2018
Decision : Suit Partly Decreed.
JUDGMENT UNDER ORDER 12 RULE 6 CPC
1. This is a suit for recovery of possession, mesne profit
and permanent injunction filed by plaintiff against defendant,
CS No. 66/18 Ram Chander Arya Vs. Dalbir Page 1/14
whose tenancy stands allegedly determined regarding the suit
property i.e. flat no. 101, Block A, V.K. Regedency, Mohd. Pur
Majri, Delhi81.
2. In nutshell, for the present purpose, it is stated in the plaint
that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property in question. It is
further stated that suit property was let out to defendant on rent on
01.03.2017. That same was given at the monthly rent of Rs.8,000/
per month excluding electricity and water charges. Further, a rent
agreement dated 30.03.2017 was also executed, a copy of which is
placed on record. It is further stated that defendant did not pay a
single penny towards the rent on one pretext or other despite
repeated demands.
3. As such, ultimately the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated
08.12.2017 thereby terminating the tenancy and called upon the
defendant, interalia, to vacate the suit property. But despite
defendant failed to vacate the suit premises and failed to pay the
arrears of rent. As such, plaintiff filed the present suit.
4. In nutshell in the written statement dated 24.03.2018, it is
submitted by defendant that plaintiff concealed the true facts. That
the rate of rent is Rs. 3,000/ only. That plaintiff borrowed a sum of
Rs. 3 Lacs from the defendant and agreed that rate of rent will be
reduced to Rs. 3,000/ per month. It is claimed that such three Lacs
was refundable security.
CS No. 66/18 Ram Chander Arya Vs. Dalbir Page 2/14
5. After going through the WS it is submitted by the Ld.
Counsel for the plaintiff that a judgment on admission under Order
XII Rule 6 CPC be passed in view of the admissions made by the
defendant.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as
the defendant in detail and have carefully gone through the record.
7. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to Order XII Rule
6 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides as under :
"6. Judgment on admission. (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
given 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 up in accordance
with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date
on which the judgment was pronounced."
(emphasis added)
8. In the judgment titled as "Charanjit Lal Mehra v. Kamal
Saroj Mahajan" reported as AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT
2765, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
CS No. 66/18 Ram Chander Arya Vs. Dalbir Page 3/14
2. ".......In fact, Order XII, Rule 6, C.P.C. is
enacted for the purpose of and in order to expedite
the trials if there is any admission on behalf of the
defendants or an admission can be inferred from
the facts and circumstances of the case without
any dispute; then, in such a case in order to
expedite and dispose of the matter such admission
can be acted upon. In the present case, looking at the
terms of lease deed, there can be no two opinions
that the tenancy was joint /composite and not
individual one. Therefore, on these admitted facts
the view taken by learned single Judge of the High
Court appears to be justified. In this connection, a
reference may be made to a decision of this Court in
the case of Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Ltd. v.
United Bank of India and others, reported in 2000
(7) SCC 120. Their Lordships have held as follows:
3. "In the Objects and Reasons set out while
amending Rule 6 of Order 12, CPC 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 to 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."......"
(emphasis added)
9. Adverting to the facts of the present case, during the course
of the arguments, it is admitted by the defendant side that the rate
of rent was reduced to Rs. 3,000/. But on a bare perusal of WS
particularly reply to para 1 and 2 of the plaint, it is clear that the
CS No. 66/18 Ram Chander Arya Vs. Dalbir Page 4/14
landlord tenant relationship is admitted. Further, initial rent @Rs.
8,000/ per month as well as rent agreement in question dated
30.03.2017 are admitted. Thus, the defendant has admitted that
defendant entered into a written tenancy with the plaintiff and by
virtue of which tenancy and in that capacity defendant was
inducted in the suit premises. As per such agreement the same
was for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 01.03.2017, which period is
already expired. Further, even if loan/security is given by the
defendant, then he can recover the same as per law.
Further, it may be noted that the evidence by the parties cannot be
beyond pleadings. Therefore, the defendant's best case is already
on record in the form of his W/S.
10. At this stage it is very relevant to note, keep in mind and
follow the directions and observations by three judges bench of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment of " Maria
Margadia Sequeria Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D)"[ decided
on 21 March, 2012 in Civil Appeal No2968 of 2012, arising out of
SLP (C) No. 15382 of 2009]:
".........30. The appellant submitted that for more than two
decades the appellant is without the possession of her own
house despite the fact that she has valid title to the suit
property.
Truth as guiding star in judicial process .
31. In this unfortunate litigation, the Court's serious
CS No. 66/18 Ram Chander Arya Vs. Dalbir Page 5/14
endeavour has to be to find out where in fact the truth lies.
The truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial
process.
32. Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The entire
judicial system has been created only to discern and find out
the real truth. Judges at all levels have to seriously engage
themselves in the journey of discovering the truth.
That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty.
33. Justice system will acquire credibility only when people
will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the
truth.
34. In Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India 1991 Supp (1)
SCC 271, this Court observed that in such a situation a
question that arises for consideration is whether the presiding
officer of a Court should simply sit as a mere umpire at a
contest between two parties and declare at the end of the
combat who has won and who has lost or is there not any
legal duty of his own, independent of the parties, to take an
active role in the proceedings in finding the truth and
administering justice? It is a well accepted and settled
principle that a Court must discharge its statutory functions
whether discretionary or obligatoryaccording to law in
dispensing justice because it is the duty of a Court not only to
do justice but also to ensure that justice is being done.
.
.
.
68. In order to do justice, it is necessary to direct the parties to give all details of pleadings with particulars. Once the title is prima facie established, it is for the person who is resisting the title holder's claim to possession to plead with sufficient particularity on the basis of his claim to remain in CS No. 66/18 Ram Chander Arya Vs. Dalbir Page 6/14 possession and place before the Court all such documents as in the ordinary course of human affairs are expected to be there.
Only if the pleadings are sufficient, would an issue be struck and the matter sent to trial, where the onus will be on him to prove the averred facts and documents.
69. The person averring a right to continue in possession shall, as far as possible, give a detailed particularized specific pleading along with documents to support his claim and details of subsequent conduct which establish his possession.
70. It would be imperative that one who claims possession must give all such details as enumerated hereunder. They are only illustrative and not exhaustive.
(a) who is or are the owner or owners of
the property;
(b) title of the property;
(c) who is in possession of the title documents
(d) identity of the claimant or claimants to
possession;
(e) the date of entry into possession;
(f) how he came into possession whether
he purchased the property or inherited
or got the same in gift or by any other
method;
(g) in case he purchased the property, what is the
consideration; if he has taken it on rent, how much is the rent, license fee or lease amount;
(h) If taken on rent, license fee or lease then insist
on rent deed, license deed or lease deed;
(i) who are the persons in possession/occupation or
otherwise living with him, in what
CS No. 66/18 Ram Chander Arya Vs. Dalbir Page 7/14
capacity; as family members, friends or
servants etc.;
(j) subsequent conduct, i.e., any event which might
have extinguished his entitlement to possession or
caused shift therein; and
(k) basis of his claim that not to deliver possession but continue in possession.
71. Apart from these pleadings, the Court must insist on documentary proof in support of the pleadings. All those documents would be relevant which come into existence after the transfer of title or possession or the encumbrance as is claimed. While dealing with the civil suits, at the threshold, the Court must carefully and critically examine pleadings and documents.
72. The Court will examine the pleadings for specificity as also the supporting material for sufficiency and then pass appropriate orders. .
.
.
.
76. In pleadings, whenever a person claims right to continue in possession of another property, it becomes necessary for him to plead with specificity about who was the owner, on what date did he enter into possession, in what capacity and in what manner did he conduct his relationship with the owner over the years till the date of suit. He must also give details on what basis he is claiming a right to continue in possession. Until the pleadings raise a sufficient case, they will not constitute sufficient claim of defence...."
(emphasis added)...............
CS No. 66/18 Ram Chander Arya Vs. Dalbir Page 8/1411. Thus, until the pleadings raise a sufficient case, they will not constitute sufficient claim of defence. Furthermore , it may be repeated that it is held in the judgment of "Charanjit Lal Mehra(supra)" that admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute. And in the facts and circumstances of present case, there is clear cut admissions, as also appears during course of arguments, regarding landlord tenant relationship and rate of rent @ Rs. 8,000/ per month. Thus, in order to expedite and dispose of the matter such admission can be acted upon. Further, it is admitted by the defendant that initially he came in possession of suit property in question as tenant.
12. At this stage it would also be fruitful to refer to Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in "Mrs. Kamal Saroj Mahajan vs Mr. Charanjit Lal Mehra And Ors. [113 (2004) DLT 788, 2004 (77) DRJ 82]:
".......5.A bare perusal of Order 12 Rule 6, reproduced above makes it clear that the emphasis is on admission of relevant facts. If the relevant facts have been admitted, the mere fact that the defendants have tried to put their own interpretation to those facts with a view to defeat the claim of the plaintiff would not be a sufficient ground to decline relief under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC. Reference in this connection may be made to some decisions of this Court. In the case of R.N. Sachdeva v. Ram Lal Mahajan Heritable Trust, 1997 III AD (Delhi) 997, it was found on facts that the premises were let CS No. 66/18 Ram Chander Arya Vs. Dalbir Page 9/14 out to the defendant, although agreement was ostensibly described as an agreement of collaboration. The defendant admitted the collaboration agreement but contended that the agreement had been extended for indefinite period and therefore plaintiff were not entitled for possession so long as nursing home is being run in the premises. Proper issues had been framed in the case and thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC. The application was allowed by this Court being of the view that relevant facts have been admitted. It was held that basically it was an agreement of tenancy which stands duly terminated by service of the notice. In another case reported in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Pal Properties (I) Pvt. Ltd., 91 (2001) DLT Page 438, the facts were that the, plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the property bearing No. H72, Connaught Circus. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were tenants of the said property, part of the said property had been sublet to defendant No. 4. Tenancy was created by a registered lease deed for a fixed term and the lease expired by efflux of time.
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had sublet the premises to defendant No. 4 on monthly rent @ Rs. 24701 /. The tenancy was terminated by notice dated 11.7.97. In the written statement, defendants took the stand that agreed rent between them and the plaintiff was only Rs. 1400/ per month which is below Rs. 3500/, therefore, the suit is barred under Section 50 of Act. ownership of the plaintiff was also denied. Even service of notice under Section 106, TP Act was denied. After completion of pleadings, plaintiff filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC which was opposed on the similar CS No. 66/18 Ram Chander Arya Vs. Dalbir Page 10/14 grounds. The Court observed that the sale deed executed by previous owners has been acted upon in other proceedings, therefore, passing of decree under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC need not be deferred only for formal proof of sale deed. On the point of termination of tenancy it was held that the lease has expired as it was a fixed term tenancy created by a registered deed. Besides, notice under Section 106, TP Act was duly served. Postal receipt have been placed on record. The plea regarding rent being less than Rs. 3500/ was negated on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Jain Company Ltd. v. Atma Ram properties (P) Ltd., reported in 65 (1997) DLT 307 (DB), wherein it was held that since the tenant himself had sublet a part of demised premises @ Rs. 24701/ per month the case is not covered under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act. A.K. Sikri, J. repelled the contention of the defendant that the decree under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC should not be passed as the resolution authorising plaintiff's attorney to institute the suit and the notice under Section 106 of the TP Act has to be formally proved. It was observed that once the relevant facts are admitted, there is no need to defer passing of decree under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC if on proper interpretation of relevant documents the petitioner is entitled to the decree. .............."
(emphasis added)..................
13. Thus, in any case if the relevant facts have been admitted, the mere fact that the defendants have tried to put their own CS No. 66/18 Ram Chander Arya Vs. Dalbir Page 11/14 interpretation to those facts with a view to defeat the claim of the plaintiff would not be a sufficient ground to decline relief under Order 12 Rule 6, CPC.
14. Thus, in any case it is clear that there is landlord tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant.
15. Further, as far as rate of rent is concerned, on the basis of pleadings and admission of defendant it is Rs. 8,000/ per month excluding water and electricity charges. Consequently it is held that as such suit premises in question does not fall within the ambit of Delhi Rent Control Act.
16. Further, the identity and description of suit premises in question is also admitted by the defendants.
17. But the defendant has stated that he has not received the legal notice in question dated 08.12.2017.
18. But, even if there was any doubt with respect to the fact that the legal notice was issued on behalf of the plaintiff , the same stood dispelled on service of the summons in the present case after institution of the present suit. A copy of such notice was annexed along with the plaint sent to the defendant. In fact the plaint itself can be treated as notice to quit and filing of a suit to recover possession amounts to termination of tenancy. The judgment of the CS No. 66/18 Ram Chander Arya Vs. Dalbir Page 12/14 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment titled as Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) reported as [183 (2011) DLT 712] is relied in this regard.
19. Thus, the tenancy of the defendant, therefore, stood terminated at any rate on expiry of a period of 15 days after service of summons in the present suit. The result is that in any case on the date of filing of W.S., the tenancy of the defendant stood terminated.
20. On termination of tenancy the status of the defendant in the suit premises has been reduced to that of an unauthorized occupant/ trespasser. The result is that the defendant is liable to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is thus entitled to decree of ejectment in terms of Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Reference may also be made to the judgments titled as Ved Prakash v. Marudhar Services [ 2000 (54) DRJ 654] and Mani Mann v. Ram Dulari [2001 (90) DLT 305]. As such the present suit deserves to be partly decreed. Accordingly, the application Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is allowed.
RELIEF
21. A decree of possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, thereby directing the defendant to hand over the vacant physical peaceful possession of the suit premises CS No. 66/18 Ram Chander Arya Vs. Dalbir Page 13/14 i.e. flat no. 101, Block A, V.K. Regedency, Mohd. Pur Majri, Delhi81.
22. The suit is partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in these terms under order XII Rule 6 CPC. Costs shall be determined at the time of final disposal of the entire suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Announced in the open Court on 13th April, 2018 (This order contains 14 pages) (NAVEEN K. KASHYAP) Senior Civil Judgecum Rent Controller (NorthWest):
Rohini Courts: Delhi CS No. 66/18 Ram Chander Arya Vs. Dalbir Page 14/14