Delhi District Court
Shri Rajesh Rawal vs Cmc Ltd on 6 May, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NEERAJ KUMAR GUPTA
ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE;DELHI
Suit NO.81/2007
Shri Rajesh Rawal
S/o Sh. G.L.Rawal
Both r/o J-143, Ashok Vihar,
Phase-I
Delhi. .....Plaintiff.
Versus
CMC Ltd.
Jeewan Vihar, Iind floor,
3, Sansad Marg
New Delhi. ......Defendant
O r d e r:
Thisorderwilldisposeof an application
underOrder12 Rule 6
CPC filed
by theplaintiff
against
thedefendant
forpassinga decreefor
possession
inrespect
ofthesuitpremiseson theavermentthatso faras
therelief
ofpossession
isconcerned,
thereisno dispute
left
whichcanbe
termedas a dispute
of factorinlawraisedinthewritten
statement
and
also by virtueof admissionmade in the writtenstatementduring
admission/denial
ofdocumentsand sincethereisadmission
offacts
so far
as relief
ofpossession
isconcerned,
a decreeforpossession
inrespect
of
suit property be passed.
2
2 The casesetup by theplaintiff
isthatpremisesinthetenancyof
thedefendant
was earlier
was owned by M/s.ShahpuriEstates
Pvt.Ltd,
fromwhom theplaintiff
purchasedthesame and thedefendant
attorned
theplaintiff
as landlady
and started
notonly payingtherentwithany
protest
butalsowroteletters
totheplaintiff
withregardtothechange in
the terms and conditions of tenancy.
3 Itisthecaseoftheplaintiff
thatthedefendant
is tenantinrespect
ofpremisesNo. 804,8th floor
inbuilding
ShahpuriTirath
SinghTower,
withitsnumber C-58,Community Centre,Janakpuri,
New Delhi at a
monthlyrentofRs.7036/-
permonth and thattherentbeingmore than
Rs.3500/-,
thepremisesarenotcoveredundertheDelhiRentControl
Act
and thatthetenancywas frommonth tomonth whichwas terminated
by
theplaintiff
videnotice
dated6.1.2007
calling
upon thedefendant
tohand
overthevacantpossession
ofthepremisestotheplaintiff
after
the expiry
of15 daysofthe service
ofnotice
and sincethenotice
was servedon the
defendanton 9.1.2007,
the defendantceased to be a tenantw.e.f.
25.1.2007.
4 Intheplaint itself itismentionedthatthedefendantwithintent to misleadtheplaintiff erroneously withoutany basisby means of letter 3 dated8.1.2007senta cheque at the enhanced rentin termsof the agreementarrived at betweenM/s.ShahpuriEstatesPvt.Ltdand the defendant butthefactremainsthatsincethesaidagreementisneither properly stampednorregistered, termsthereof can notbe readand the plaintiff videletter dated18.1.2007 made itclear tothe defendant thatthe enhanced rentis not acceptable as the tenancyhas alreadybeen terminated and subject to allrulesand conditions thecheque can be depositedbuton accountof damages foruse and occupation and adjustmentwill be given as and when quantumofdamages isdecided by thecourtand thefactremainsthatchequeswere neverdeposited by the plaintiff.
5 Inthewritten statement filed, preliminary objection takenistothe effect thattheplaintiff isnottheowner/landlady ofthesuitpremisesand no legalrights vestsin the plaintiff to seek eviction of the plaintiff in asmuch as no title deed evidencing ownershipoftheplainiff has been placed on record and there is no relationship of lessor and lessee b the plaintiff and the defendant.
6 Itisfurther thecontention made inthewritten statement thatM/s.
Shahpuri Estates Pvt.Ltd,who had inducted the defendant as a tenant in thesuit premiseshad vestedintheplaintiff onlya limited right torecover 4 leaserentfromthedefendant and itisbecauseofsuchlimited right, the defendant has been payingand plaintiff has been receivingmonthlyrent fromthedefendant and thattheright was vestedowingtosome financial transaction between the plaintiff and M/s.ShahpuriEstatesPvt.Ltd.
Whereby inlieuofoutstanding payable by ShahpuriEstatesPvt.Ltdto the plaintiff, the plaintiff was permitted to realize the rent from 7 Pleahas alsobeen takenthatthesuitisliable tobe dismissed for non joinder of M/s.ShahpuriEstatesPvt.Ltdwho isa necessaryparty and with regard to attornment it is stated that the allegation is bald one. Itisalso thestandtakeninthewritten statement thatthelease grantedby M/s.ShapuriEstatesPvt.Ltdinfavourofthedefendantfora periodofnineyearstobe renewablefora further periodofnineyearsat the option of the defendant and as such the defendant has a right t thepremiseswithout interruption or hindrance 2nd January,2013.
till Such an intention ofthedefendant tocontinue inpossession till January,2013 was conveyedby thedefendant totheplaintiff videletter dated 5.3.2007 to which the plaintiff did not raise any objection.
8 Itisalsomentioned thatthedefendanthas notattorned to the plaintiff and sincetheplaintiff isnottheownerthequestion ofattornment do notariseand thattheplaintiff has no right todeterminethetenancyof 5 the defendant.
9 The receipt ofnotice isnotdisputed.
However,itisstated thatsince plaintiff has no right toterminate thetenancy, thenoticeterminating the tenancyisuselessand sincethenotice was misconceived and baseless, there was no need to file any reply thereto.
10 Replication has been filed by theplaintiff refuting theaverments made inthewritten statement and reiterating theavermentsmade inthe plaint and inthesame itisdulymentionedthatthecontention of the defendant thatplaintiff was onlya rentcollector and ShahpuriEstates Pvt.
Ltdcontinued tobe theLandlord/landlady and entitled toreceive therent isconcernedisfalse totheknowledgeofthedefendantas rentwas paid totheplaintiff after thededuction ofTDS and TDS certificate was givento theplaintiff and inthebooksofaccount, theliability topay rentby the defendant isshown tobe totheplaintiff and thattherewas relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant.
11 Ihaveheardthe learned counselforparties and haveperusedthe record.
12 So faras thecontention ofthedefendant thattheleasewas not 6 extentable for a further periodofnineyearsas mentionedinthelease deed betweenthedefendantand M/s.ShahpuriEstatesPvt.Ltd., the same can not be appreciated . A leaseotherthan foragricultural purposesformore thana yearistobe inwriting and has tobe registered intermsofSection 107 Transfer ofProperty Actand admittedly thelease deed ofwhich clauseregarding further renewalisrelied upon is nota dulyregistered one.Sincetheleasedeed isnota dulyregistered deed, termsthereof can notbe readeven by seekingthe aidof Section 49 of theRegistration Act.Reliance inthisregardisplacedupon in thecaseof Amar Chand Talwar and others ...Vs... M/s. Export Promotion Council for handicrafts, 77 (1999) Delhi Law Times 809, itwas held that"wherein the lease deed is not registered in terms of section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, the same will be in admissible in evidence and the lease can be terminated by serving a notice of termination and no lease can be created for a renewal term also and the plaintiff is entitled to judgment on admission.
12 The factofunregistered leasedeed when therelationship isnot disputed will be thatitwill continue tobe a leasefrommonth tomonth till the time the lease is terminated.
13. So faras thecontention ofthedefendant thattheplaintiff isnotthe 7 original Landlord/landlady/landlady and has failed toproveher title, the plaintiff can not maintain a suitand Section116 EvidenceActwill not come intoplayas admittedly theplaintiff isnottheoriginal landlady.
The saidcontention Inthecase of Smt. Sugga Bai and ishavingno force.
others...Vs.. Smt. Hiralal and others, AIR 1969 Madhya Pradesh 32,it was heldthat"a tenant can not be permitted to deny the title of the original lessor and similarly he can not be permitted to deny the derivative title of a reversioner if he has attorned to him. However, if he has not attorned to him or if he has not paid any rent to him, he can certainly deny the derivative title of a reversioner. It was further held that if a tenant denies the title of his Landlord outside the permissible limits, he should forfeit his tenancy, as he can not be permitted to deny his Landlord's title unless he has delivered back possession to the Landlord/landlady openly.
14. So itwas clearly heldthateventhetenantcan notbe permitted to deny the title of the reversioner in terms of Section 116 Evidence
15. InthecaseofSmt. Satya Malhotra & ors...Vs.. Mohinder Singh Arora, 81 (1999) Delhi Law Times 627 itwas heldthat:it is well settled principle of law that a tenant can not challenge the title of the subsequent purchaser and if at all the title was to be challenged, the same could be challenged only by real owner.
816. Inthepresent casecaseM/s.M/s.ShahpuriEstates Pvt.
Ltd,was therealownerand thefactremainsthatM/s.ShahpuriEstates Pvt. Ltd, has not come forward to challenge the title of the plainti
17. Inthecaseof National Spiritual Assembly of Bahais of India and others ...Vs.. Maharashtra State Khadi and Village Industries Board and another, 1994 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 704 itwas heldthat" longestablished conductof payment of rent would amount to be an attornment and as such title of a person who h been attornedcan not be challenged as per section116 of the Evidence Act.
18. In thecase of Kesoram Poddar ....Vs.. Banamali Dey and others, AIR 1927, Calcutta 941 itwas heldthata personattorning the lessor as a tenant can not question the title of the lessor.
19. Inthecaseof Parameshwarlal Agarwalla and another ...Vs..
Jay Naryan Jalan, AIR 1957 Assam 188 whilerelying thedecision of theJudicial CommitteeinthecaseofKrishnaPrasadLalVs.Baraboni Coal Concern, Ltd. AIR 1937 PC 251, it was held "Section that 9 116 Evidence Act do not give a ground for the contention that when a person already in possession of land, becomes tenant to another, there is no estoppel against his denying his Landlord/landlady's title and that it is, therefore, too much to contend that a tenant in possession, if he has in fact attorned to a Landlord/landlady, would still be entitled to challenge his derivative title, because at the beginning of the tenancy he was not let into occupation by the Landlord/landlady in question and it was held that the beginning of the tenancy in such a case would refer to the beginning of the new tenancy between the tenant and the Landlord/landlady by virtue of the attornment and the tenant's occupation of the land thenceforward would be referable to that attornment.
20. Anotherargumentadvancedthatsincerenthas been accepted for some time at enhanced rate, it will amount to renewal and the t isprotected by virtue ofSection53-A of Transfer of Property Act,is unsustainable.
21. Inthecaseof Singer India Ltd.. Vs. Amita Gupta, 2000 VII AD ( Delhi) 1076 itwas heldthatwherethelease deed isunregistered, it isnotonlyunregistered, itcan notbe saidthatitwas fora periodof9 yearsor 18 yearsinviewof Section 107 Transfer ofProperty Actand 10 has to be treated as leasefrommonth to month.Even othersie the mandateofSection 107 TransferofProperty Actwouldnotcome into playsimplybecause enhancedrentwas sentand acceptedafterthe initial expiry oftheleaseinas much as Section53A oftheTransfer of Property Actcan notbe construed ina manner whichwouldnegatethe provisions ofSection107 Transfer ofProperty Act.When a legislature has intended a particular acttobe done ina particular manner,ithas to be done inthatmanner ornotatall.
Itwas further heldthatsection 53A and Section107 of the Transferof PropertyAct are to be read harmoniouslyand the effectof offering enhanced rent would legitimatize thepossession.
Itwas further heldthat further extension of unregistered deed will be hitby Registration Actand Section49 ofthe Registration Act would of no help for readingsuch a clause for collateral purpose.
22. Letus examinethefactual and legal veracity ofthepleas takenby thedefendant inhiswritten statement.
One ofthepleatakenis thattheplaintiff isnottheowner/landlady ofthepremises.
Inpara(e)of thepreliminary objections thecontention is totheeffect thatthelease grantedby M/s.ShahpuriEstatesPvt.Ltdwas fornineyearsto be renewableforthe further periodof nineyearsat the optionof the defendant.
However,in the same para itis mentionedthateven 11 otherwise by letter dated5.3.2007the defendanthad categorically informedtheplaintiff thattheydesireto continueinpossessiontill January,2013.
Ifas perthedefendant, theplaintiff was onlytocollect the rentand has not become the landlady, the occasionof the defendant towriteletter totheplaintiff forcontinuing theleasedo not ariseand by writing sucha letter totheplaintiff by thedefendant clearly goes to show thatforthe purposeof,even extension of lease,the defendant has been writing letters totheplaintiff.
Similar averments arethereinthereplytopara4 on merits,whereitisalsostatedthat pertinently, theplaintiff hasnotraised anyobjection tothe saiddecision ofthedefendant.
So as per thedefendant, even decision was tobe takenby the plaintiff and plaintiff can takedecision onlywhen the plaintiff actsinthecapacity ofa Landlordtowhom thedefendant has attorned.
23. Duringadmission/denial thedefendanthas admittedtheletters dated October28,1998,July05,1999,August03,1999, November 04,1999,December 03,1999,January03,2000,February04,2000, March 03,2000, April06,2000, May 05,2000, June 02,2000,July 06,2000,September01,2000,October03,2000,February05,2001, March 05,2001,April04,2001,August02,2001,October03,2001, November 05,2001, December 01,2001, March 04,2002, April 12 04,2002,May 04,2002,June06,2002,July04,2002,August03,2002, September04,2002,October04,2002,December 04,2002,January 04,2003,February03,2003, AgainFebruary03,2003,March 04,2003, April 07,2003,May 06,2003,June 05,2003,July03,2003,August 04,2003,September05,2003,October06,2003,November 04,2003, January06,2004,February06,2004,March 05,2004,April, 06,2004, May 06,2004, June 05,2004, July 05,2004, August 05,2004, September06,2004, October05,2004,November 05,2004, December 06,2004, January 05,2005, February07,2005, April06,2005, November 06,2006and the same have been marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P58.A perusalof all theseletters shows thatcontinuously the defendanthas been tendering therentto theplaintiff and even the cheques are drawn in favourof the plaintiff.
So rent is being continuously paid by the defendant to the plaintiff .
24. Further more,fromEx.P17toEx.P58onwardsie April 4 2001 onwards TDS has been deductedby thedefendantinrespectofthe rentpaid.
TDS canonlybe deductedincasewhen thepersontowhom thepaymentismade isentitled toreceive thepaymentofrentand to whom thetenantisliable to pay rent.
Itprovestheliability of payment ofrentby thedefendanttotheplaintiff.
Incase itisonlya financial arrangement, whichotherwise isnot thereas discussedabove,the 13 questionofdeduction ofTDS fromtheaccountoftheplaintiff wouldnot arise.
Itprovesthatdefendant has admitted thathisliability topay rent was to the plaintiff.
25. The plaintiff has placed on recordthe letter dated November 06,2003,whichhas been admitted by thedefendant during admission/denial and thesame was markedas Ex.P59.Intheletter itis statedthat we request you that the extension of lease deed for the premises occupied by us for a further period of three years effective 02.01.2004 and in view of the down trend in the rental market, we propose to increase the rent by 10% for a further period of three years.
However,othertermsand conditions will remainedunchanged.Inthis letter concurrence hasbeen soughtfromtheplaintiff so thatrevised rent can be sent to the plaintiff accordingly.
Admittedly, thereis no correspondence by thedefendant withM/s. ShahpuriEstates Pvt.Ltd.
Ifthe plaintiff was simplya rentcollector forand on behalfof M/s.
ShahpuriEstates Pvt.Ltd undersome financial arrangementwithM/s.
ShahpuriEstates Pvt.Ltd qua whichno documenthas been placedon recordby thedefendant, thedefendant wouldnothave written letter to theplaintiff forextension ofleasedeed orforhavinghisconcurrence.
Extension canbe soughtonlyfroma personwho iscompetenttogiveit in the eyes of defendantand extensioncan be givenonlyby a 14 Landlord.
So the defendanthas admittedthe plaintiff as a landlord.
Furthermore, the versionof the defendantwhich otherwise is not tenable thattheleasewas extendableforfurther nineyears, thelease beingunregistered one alsostandsdemolished as extension has been soughtonlyfora periodofthreeyears and notfor thetermofnine years and the factalso remainsthatat no pointof time,any correspondence has been made with M/s. Shahpuri Estates Pvt. Ltd .
26. The plaintiff has also placed on recordletter dated December 11,2003,whichhas been admitted by thedefendant during admission/denial and thesame was markedas Ex.P60.Notonlyinthe saidletter an extension has been soughtintermsoftheprevious letter Ex.P59,buttheplaintiff toas Landlord and as has alsobeen referred such itisan admission on thepartofthedefendant thatplaintiff isthe Landlord/landlady of the premises.
27. From theletters, itisalsoborneoutthatcopiesofsuch letters were neveraddressedtoorsenttoM/s.ShahpuriEstatesPvt.
Ltd,and extension was sought onlyfromtheplaintiff.
As suchitis further borne out thatso faras M/s.ShahpuriEstatesPvt.Ltd.Is concerned, who has createdinitial lease,saidpersonisoutofpicture even as perthedefendant and forallpurposesregarding paymentof 15 rentorextension oflease, he has been writing totheplaintiff onlyand has referred theplaintiff as theLandlord/landlady.
From letter Ex.P59 datedNovember 06,2003it isalsoevident thatleaseotherwise has come to an end and thatis why extension has been soughtand concurrence of the plaintiff is also sought.
28. The factalsoremainsthatthesaidletters werefiled by the plaintiff alongwiththeplaint and copiesthereof has been supplied and thereafter thewritten statement was filed.
The documentswereadmitted atthestageofadmission/denial ieafter thewritten statement has been filed.
The effect will be thatfirst ofallthedefendant has notchallenged orexplained thesedocumentsinhiswritten statement atallas tounder whatcircumstances theywere written norhad tried towriggle outfrom the contentions raisedin the letters.
The second aspectis that admission/denial was done afterthewritten statementwas filed and despite theobjections takenwithregardtothefactthattheplaintiff is nottheowner/Landlord/landlady orthattheleasewas extendable fora further periodofnineyears, thesaiddocumentshad been admitted by thedefendant and thisgainsignificance inasmuch as thedefendant has admitted thedocumentwithout any demur or protestand inits entirety after filing ofthewritten statement and discloses itsdefence.
The letters clearly demolishes thedefencetakenand itisa casewhere 16 thedefencetakenisbasically no defenceinviewofthefacts admitted in the written statement and the facts admitted by way of these letters
29. Inreply totheapplication underOrder12 Rule6 CPC an attempt has been made towriggle outfromtheadmission contained intheletter by stating thatextension soughtfromtheplaintiff was inadvertent but thefactremainsthatas already discussed, thedefendant can notbe permitted to wriggleout from his admissionmade in the written statement and inany casea partycannot be permitted towithdraw an admissioninsucha manner when especially no application hasbeen filed togetthewritten statement amended.The factalsoremainsthat thereply toapplication underOrder12 Rule6 CPC was filed on 18.8.07 and thedocumentshad been admittedwithout any explanationon 15.11.2007 ieeven after thefiling ofthereplytotheapplication under Order12 Rule6 CPC and still duringadmission/denial, reservation has been made, whileadmitting thecontents ofletter.
The circumstance of inadvertance, otherwise, has not been mentionedin the replyto application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
30. The argumentadvancedby thecounselforthedefendant that plaintiff has not filed any document to show that he is the own the agreementtosellfiled on recordand the tripartite agreement 17 placedon recordwill not amount todocumentoftitle and as suchthe plaintiff can nottermedtobe theownerofthepremisesora landlord is misplaced.As already discussed, a suit forpossession canbe filed by a Landlord/landlady and it is not necessary that it has to be fil owner.By virtue of Section116 EvidenceAct,the tenantcan not disputethe title of the Landlord/landlady or even of subsequent Landlord/landlady to whom the defendanthas attorned,which attornment isthere by way ofcontinuous payment ofrentforyears together and alsoby referring theplaintiff as theLandlord/landlady and admitting theplaintiff as a Landlord/landlady by seekingextension ofthe lease and the concurrence of the plaintiff for extension.
31. In thecase of Dharmendera Nath and others ..Vs. Jagdish Prakash, AIR 1976 Allahabad 107 itwas heldthat"sincetheplaintiffs have been admittedto be theLandlord/landladys and tenantshave attorned totheplaintiff eventheeissome defect intheoriginal deed of sale,thesame will be inconsequence and thedefendantisestopped fromchallenging thetitle oftheplaintiff inrespect ofthepremisesand it isunnecessary todecidethequestion ofvalidity ofthesaledeed and in any case theversion offinancial arrangementisnegatedcompletely forwhichotherwise thereisno further particulars as thenatureofthe transaction of financial arrangement.
Mere extension ofleaseafter the 18 determination of tenancycan notbe a groundforsayingthatinany casethetenancystandrenewed.Therehas to be an intention ofthe plaintiff torenewthetenancywhichisabsolutely lacking inthepresent case and the factalsoremainsthatthe plaintiff has pleadedvide separate letter thattherenttenderedwas notacceptedas rentbut it was made clearthatthesame will be adjusted inthedamages and thereisno denial inthewritten statement regarding sucha pleading of theplaintiff.
As suchtheargumentthatplaintiff havingacceptedtherent will amount to renewal of lease is not sustainable.
32. Inthepresent casetheplaintiff haspleadedthatnotice dated 6.1.2007 terminating thetenancyand inthewritten statement thereplyof noticeis not disputedand only the averment is thatitis of no consequenceinlawand theplaintiff havingnottheowner has no right to determine thetenancy.
The receipt ofnotice has notbeen disputed . IN view of the above discussion, itis apparentthatthe tenancystood terminated vide aforesaid notice.
33. Order12 Rule6 CPC clearly laysdown thatthe admission offacts canbe inthepleadings orotherwise and can be oralorofwriting and itc an be either on theapplication orby theCourtofitsown motion.
So forlooking intotheadmission, itisnotonlythepleadings whichhasto 19 be seen butthedocumentfiled by thepartyand admitted by theparties.
The very purposeof admission/denial is to limit the scope of the controversy betweentheparties, ifany,and ifa contention ismade inthe written statement itistotally contrary toadmission made inthedocument thenthecontention raisedinthewritten statement istobe heldatvery stageitself tobe unfoundedand an allegation inair.
Inthepleadings only factshas tobe pleadedand nottheevidence.
Evidenceistobe ledto provethefacts.
The documentsareevidenceand ifthedocumentsare provedoradmitted, thenitwill reflect on thefacts pleadedas towhether the facts pleaded are genuine or not.
34. Inthecaseof Rajiv Saluja....Vs... M/s. Bhartia Industries Limited, 98 (2002) Delhi Law Times 720 itwas heldthatwhere the denial made inthewritten statementareunspecific and evasiveithas to intheeyesoflaw.InthecaseofRam Ghai Vs. be takenas no denial U.P. State Handloom Corporation, 91 ( 2001) DLT, 386 itwas heldthat inordertoinvoketheprovisions ofOrder12 Rule6 CPC theCourthas to scrutinise the pleadingsin itstotality and ignorethe evasiveand unspecific denials either as to the relationship or as to the servic or as to the nature of tenancy.
35. InthecaseofDDA Vs. Durga Chand Kaushik, AIR 1973 20 SC 2609 itwas held thateventherenewalofleaserequire registration and ifthereisno registration ofrenewalofleasedeed,thesame isofno effect and will be termed as lease from month to month.
36 In the case of Union Bank of India...Vs... Sushila Goela & others, 125 (2005) Delhi Law Times, 161 itwas heldthat where the tenancyhas expiredby efflux oftimeeven no noticeisnecessaryand wherethedefendant has notdisputed receipt ofnotice and has admitted documentsduringadmission/denial, judgmentcanbe passedunderOrder 12 Rule 6 CPC whichbecome applicable and thereisno questionof holding over.
37 Inthecase of Rajiv Srivastava ..Vs.. Sanjiv Tuli and another, 119 (2005) Delhi Law Times, 202 itwas heldthatuse of theexpression "otherwise"
permits thecourttopassjudgmenton thebasisofstatement made by theparties butalsode hors thepleadings notonlyon pleadings ie either in any document or even in the statement recorded in the 38 Inthe caseof ITDC Ltd...Vs.. M/s. Chander Pal Sood & son , 84 (2000) DLT 337 itwas heldthatOrder12 Rule6 CPC givesa verywide discretion totheCourt.
UnderthisruletheCourtmay atany stageofthe 21 suit either on theapplication ofany partyorofitsown motionand without determination ofany otherquestion betweentheparties can make such ordergiving suchjudgmentas itmay think fit on thebasisofadmission of a fact made in the pleadings or otherwise .
39 Inthecaseof Charanjit Lal Mehra and others....Vs.. Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan and another, AIR 2005 Supreme Court,2765 itwas held thatforinvokingOrder12 Rule6 CPC even thedocumentcan be seen.
As the very purpose is to expedite the trial.
40 In the case of Surjit Sachdev ...Vs.. Kazakhstan Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. & others, 66 (1997) Delhi Law Times, 54 itwas held thatfiling of formalapplication under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is not necessary.
41 Ld.counselforthedefendant upon State Bank has placedreliance of India Vs... Midland Industries and others, AIR 1988 Delhi 153.
However,thesame isnotapplicable tothefacts and circumstances ofthe caseas thepresentcaseisnot that theobjections raisedgoes tothe rootofthecase,and itisalsonot whereseriousquestions oflawareto be decided and is also not a case where admission is not unequivocal 22 Inviewof theabove discussion, theapplication underOrder12 Rule6 CPC isallowed and a preliminary decreeforpossession inrespect of flat on 8th floor No.804,situated inbuilding known as ShahpuriTirath SinghTower,C-58,CommunityCentre, Janakpuri, New Delhiispassedin favourof the plaintiff and againstthe defendant.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in open court. ( Neeraj Kumar Gupta) 6th May,2008 Addl. District Judge, Delhi 23