Delhi District Court
Ashwani Sain And Ors vs Shyamwati Devi on 27 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF GAURAV: DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI
CNR No. DLSH01-006001-2024
RCA(DJ) No. 113/2024
In the matter of:-
Memo of Parties
1. Sh. Ashwani Sain
S/o Late Sh. Raj Kumar
2. Sh. Harshit Jain
S/o Late Sh. Sanjay Kumar
3. Smt. Prabha Sain
W/o Late Sh. Sanjay Kumar
All at: -
Private Shop No. 7,
Jeet Singh Market, Main Road,
Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi-110031 ...Appellants
Versus
1. Smt. Shyamwati Devi,
W/o Late Sh. Jeet Ram
2. Sh. Sundar Naagar
S/o Late Sh. Jeet Ram
Both at: -
R/o IX/5067, Main Road,
Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi-110031 ...Respondents
Date of Institution : 01.10.2024
Date of final argument : 26.03.2025
Date of judgment : 27.03.2025
Result : Dismissed
(Sh. Anshuya Kumar, Ld. Counsel for Appellants)
(Sh. Raj Kumar, Ld. Counsel for Respondents)
Digitally
signed by
GAURAV
RCA(DJ)No. 113/2024 GAURAV Date:
Sh. Ashwani Sain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Shyamwati Devi & Anr. Page No. 1 of 17 2025.03.27
16:56:21
+0530
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present civil appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as CPC), which has been filed by the appellants/defendants against the impugned order/decree dated 03.09.2024, passed by the Ld. Trial Court, whereby the application of the respondents/plaintiffs under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, was allowed and a decree for possession of the property bearing no. Private Shop No. 7, in Property No. IX/5067, Jeet Singh Market, Main Road, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 (as shown in red colour in the site plan) was granted in favour of respondent no. 1/plaintiff no. 1 (hereinafter referred as suit property). Alongwith present appeal, separate application under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC for seeking stay of execution, has also been filed by the appellants/defendants as the impugned decree is currently pending under execution.
2. To avoid confusion and for the ease of reference and clarity in the judgment, the appellants and respondents herein, shall be referred to by their original nomenclature in the suit as "defendant no. 1" "defendant no. 2" "defendant no. 3" "plaintiff no. 1" and "plaintiff no. 2" respectively, throughout the present judgment.
BRIEF MATRIX OF THE SUIT
3. As per the contents of the plaint, the suit property is owned by plaintiff no. 1 and had originally been let out the same to Sh. Raj Kumar and Sh. Sanjay Kumar, several years back at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- exclusive of electricity charges, and Digitally signed by RCA(DJ)No. 113/2024 GAURAV Sh. Ashwani Sain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Shyamwati Devi & Anr. Page No. 2 of 17 GAURAV Date:
2025.03.27 16:56:38 +0530 subsequent to their death, defendant no.1 and defendant no. 2, being their surviving legal heirs, succeeded to the tenancy. The defendant no. 3 was also made the joint tenant in the suit property at the request of defendant no. 1 and defendant no.2. The plaintiff no. 2 (being the son of plaintiff no. 1) was authorized to collect the rent from the defendants on behalf of plaintiff no. 1. By the passage of time, the monthly rent was revised/enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- exclusive of electricity charges, which was paid by the defendants upto December, 2020 against the rent receipts issued jointly in the name of all the defendants by the plaintiff no.1. Thereafter, the defendants allegedly stopped paying rent with effect from January, 2021 and for that, legal notice dated 18.02.2021 was served upon them, by terminating their tenancy, following which the suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent and damages was filed before the Ld. Trial Court.
4. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant no. 1, it is asserted and claimed that the suit property was given on pagdi basis by the plaintiffs to Sh. Raj Kumar and Sh. Sanjay Kumar, upon payment of Rs. 2,90,000/- and that a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- was agreed upon and after their demise, it was transferred to the defendant no. 1, being the legal heir. It was also claimed that on 10.02.2021, an amount of Rs. 60,000/- as advance rent for the year 2021, was paid to Sh. Ram Avtar, who was authorized by the plaintiffs but the receipt/acknowledgment of the said rent amount was not issued.
5. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3, it is also asserted and claimed in same manner as defendant no. 1 that the suit property was given on Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
RCA(DJ)No. 113/2024 2025.03.27
Sh. Ashwani Sain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Shyamwati Devi & Anr. Page No. 3 of 17 16:56:52
+0530
pagdi basis vide receipt dated 10.11.1991 by the plaintiffs to Sh. Raj Kumar and Sh. Sanjay Kumar, upon payment of Rs. 2,90,000/- and that a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- was agreed upon and after their demise, it was transferred to the defendants being the legal heirs. It was also claimed that on 10.02.2021, an amount of Rs. 60,000/- as advance rent for the year 2021, was paid to Sh. Ram Avtar, who was authorized by the plaintiffs but the receipt/acknowledgment of the said rent amount was not issued.
6. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiffs moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, contending that the relationship of landlord and tenant and rate of rent Rs. 5,000/- per month, were duly admitted by defendant no. 1 in his written statement and that no lawful justification had been provided for retention of possession of the suit property after termination of tenancy. Moreover, defendant no. 2 and 3 also failed to disclose their status in the suit property in their joint written statement.
7. The said application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, was previously disposed of as dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 04.05.2023 and subsequently, the said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and vide order dated 27.06.2024 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the said order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Ld. Trial Court for de novo consideration on the said application for a decision on merits.
8. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 03.09.2024, the said application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, was allowed by the Ld. Trial Court, primarily on the ground that the defendant no. 1 admitted the landlord and tenant relationship and the defendant Digitally signed by GAURAV RCA(DJ)No. 113/2024 GAURAV Date:
Sh. Ashwani Sain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Shyamwati Devi & Anr. Page No. 4 of 17 2025.03.27 16:57:08 +0530 no. 2 and defendant no. 3, had failed to disclosed their status as occupants of the suit property or nature of their right/interest in the suit property. The Ld. Trial Court further observed that defendants had not disputed the receipt of the legal notice dated 18.02.2021 and the termination of the lease was effected in accordance with section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Ld. Trial Court further observed that in the absence of any registered instrument/sale deed, the plea of pagdi is not legally sustainable.
9. Feeling aggrieved by the said impugned order, the defendants preferred the present appeal mainly on the grounds that: -
1.) The plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership.
2.) There were no unequivocal admissions on behalf of defendants to justify a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
3.) The Ld. Trial Court ignored the pagdi transaction as claimed by the defendants and wrongly excluded the material facts.
10. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellants have also filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC, for adducing additional evidence at the appellate stage with supporting affidavit and documents. The additional evidence are as follows: -
1.) One pen drive (with certificate u/s 63 of BSA Act and transcript) containing an alleged audio recording conversations between plaintiff no. 2 and the sister of defendant No. 1 and between plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no. 1, wherein plaintiff no. 2 is said to have admitted the pagdi transaction and advance payment of rent of Rs. 60,000/- for the year 2021 as claimed.
2.) Compromise deed purportedly signed by plaintiff Digitally signed by GAURAV RCA(DJ)No. 113/2024 Sh. Ashwani Sain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Shyamwati Devi & Anr. Page No. 5 of 17 GAURAV Date:
2025.03.27 16:57:19 +0530 no. 1 admitting the pagdi transaction as claimed.
3.) Receipt dated 10.11.1991 allegedly executed by plaintiff no. 1 in favour of Sh. Raj Kumar and Sh. Sanjay Kumar, confirming the pagdi transaction.
11. Notice of this appeal was sent to plaintiffs and trial court record was also requisitioned for adjudicating the present appeal.
12. Plaintiffs have duly appeared through counsel and filed written submission/reply to the appeal, denying all the assertions made therein and have prayed for dismissal of the same.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS
13. It is contended that factum of the suit property having been transferred/sold to the predecessors of the defendants by the plaintiffs, is the crux of the issue involved in the suit and the aforesaid additional evidence, will establish the said fact. Therefore, if the aforesaid additional evidence is not permitted to be taken on record at this stage, then grave prejudice will be caused to the defendants.
14. It is further contended that the suit property was given on pagdi basis vide receipt dated 10.11.1991 by the plaintiffs to Sh. Raj Kumar and Sh. Sanjay Kumar, upon payment of Rs. 2,90,000/- and that a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- exclusive of electricity charges, was also agreed upon and after their demise, it was transferred to the defendants being the legal heirs.
15. It is further contended that on 10.02.2021, defendants paid an amount of Rs. 60,000/- as advance rent for the year 2021, to Sh. Ram Avtar, who was authorized by the plaintiffs but the receipt /acknowledgment of the said rent amount was not issued.
16. It is further contended that the provision of Section 106 of Digitally signed by GAURAV RCA(DJ)No. 113/2024 Sh. Ashwani Sain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Shyamwati Devi & Anr. Page No. 6 of 17 GAURAV Date:
2025.03.27 16:57:38 +0530 the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is not applicable in the present case, as the plaintiffs had already received advance rent of Rs. 60,000/- for the entire year 2021 as admitted in the alleged audio clip. He further contended that once the rent for the full year was accepted, the tenancy stood extended on a year-to-year basis by implication, and the legal notice dated 18.02.2021, terminating the tenancy has no legal effect. The acceptance of advance rent for the year, rendering the suit for possession premature and unsustainable in law. At the end, it is prayed that the additional evidence as per Order 41 Rule 27 CPC may be taken on record and also prayed to set aside the impugned order/decree dated 03.09.2024 and to allow the present appeal.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
17. Per contra, though, the plaintiffs did not opt to file any written reply to the said application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC but vehemently opposed the said application on the grounds that the aforesaid alleged additional documents were never filed before the Ld. Trial Court despite having been in existence and possession of the defendants. Moreover, the alleged compromise deed is undated and unregistered.
18. It is further contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed on the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC by Ld. Trial Court as the landlord and tenant relationship not in dispute, the rate of rent of the suit property is more than 3,500/- so, as to exclude the applicability of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and the termination of tenancy has been admitted by the appellant upon the receipt of legal notice dated 18.02.2021. He has also placed reliance upon Digitally signed by GAURAV RCA(DJ)No. 113/2024 GAURAV Date:
Sh. Ashwani Sain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Shyamwati Devi & Anr. Page No. 7 of 17 2025.03.27 16:57:48 +0530 the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as "H S Bedi Vs. NHAI, RFA 784/2010" wherein it is held that the tenant has an independent remedy to recover the loan/ security, but in no way can retain the possession of the premises on the plea that until and unless security is refunded, possession will not be handed over. At the end, it is prayed that the present application as well as appeal may kindly be pleased to dismiss with heavy cost.
19. I have perused the entire record of appeal as well as trial court record relied upon by the defendants and considered the rival contentions made before the court.
20. Before proceedings further, firstly, this court has to decide as to whether the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for leading additional evidence, deserves to be allowed or not. For that, it is imperative to mention herein that the law on Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is well settled. The said provision allows production of additional evidence at the appellate stage only in exceptional circumstances, which are as follows: -
1.) When the trial court has wrongly refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted.
2.) When the party seeking to produce additional evidence was prevented by sufficient cause from producing it in the trial court.
3.) When the appellate court requires the evidence to pronounce judgment properly.
21. To answer the above first question, it is important to point the needle towards the fact that none of the above conditions are satisfied in the present case. The defendants have not furnished any sufficient or plausible explanation as to why the alleged pen Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
RCA(DJ)No. 113/2024 2025.03.27
Sh. Ashwani Sain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Shyamwati Devi & Anr. Page No. 8 of 17 16:58:03
+0530
drive or compromise deed or receipt dated 10.11.1991, were not placed before the Ld. Trial Court, despite their alleged significance, especially when the same were well within their knowledge and possession. No attempt was ever made to file the same before the Ld. Trial Court.
22. On specific query from the Ld. Counsel for the defendants to that regard, it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants that due to demise in the family of the previous counsel, who was representing the defendants before the Ld. Trial Court, the aforesaid additional evidence could not be placed on record. The explanation offered is not conceivable and the same seems to be vague and afterthought. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any genuine effort made to bring the additional evidence on record before Ld. Trial Court or any exceptional circumstances, preventing the same.
23. It is settled that the additional evidence cannot be allowed to fill in lacunae or patch up the weak points in pleadings. The party must demonstrate due diligence and the necessity of such evidence for effective adjudication of the dispute.
24. Even otherwise, the pen drive allegedly containing audio recording conversation with one person, who is not a party to the proceedings. Moreover, the transcripts are unclear, undated, unverified and uncorroborated and its evidentiary value is suspected. Even for the sake of argument, if the alleged audio conversations are believed to be true and correct that the plaintiffs had taken an amount of Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 2,90,000/- (Rs. 3,50,000/- in total) from defendants as alleged, though not admitted by the plaintiffs, then also defendants have an Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
RCA(DJ)No. 113/20242025.03.27 16:58:14 Sh. Ashwani Sain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Shyamwati Devi & Anr. Page No. 9 of 17 +0530 independent remedy to recover the said amount/security, but in no way, can retain the possession of the suit property.
25. As far as the alleged compromise deed is concerned, even for the sake of argument, the said compromise deed is also believed to be true and correct at this stage, then also, the same is not admissible in accordance with law as the said compromise deed is undated and unregistered and the same does not indicate any pagdi amount as alleged.
26. Apart from that, the Ld. Counsel for the defendants also filed the receipt dated 10.11.1991 alongwith the aforesaid application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, allegedly executed by plaintiff no. 1 in favour of Sh. Raj Kumar and Sh. Sanjay Kumar, confirming the pagdi transaction. However, on perusal of the said alleged receipt, the same also does not indicate any pagdi transaction as alleged. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the defendants appears to be afterthought and lacks merit. Therefore, admitting such additional evidence at this stage, would not only delay the proceedings but also prejudice the plaintiffs unfairly and unjustly.
27. In the light of aforesaid discussion and findings and in view of the above legal position, the aforesaid application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits and the same is disposed of, accordingly.
28. Now the second question arises that whether the decree of possession of the suit property, granted in favour of plaintiff no. 1, under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, was rightly passed by the Ld. Trial Court, based on unequivocal admission of the defendants. Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
RCA(DJ)No. 113/2024 2025.03.27
Sh. Ashwani Sain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Shyamwati Devi & Anr. Page No. 10 of 17 16:58:24
+0530
29. Before proceedings further, it is necessary to refer the relevant provisions of law i.e. Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and Section 53 of the Bhartiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam, which provides as under: -
ORDER XII RULE 6 :-
6. 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 up in accordance with the judgment, and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.
Section 53 of the Bhartiya Sakshaya Adshiniyam.
"53. Facts admitted need not be proved-No fact need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings:
Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions."
30. The object of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, is to enable the parties to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the Digitally signed by GAURAV RCA(DJ)No. 113/2024 GAURAV Date:
Sh. Ashwani Sain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Shyamwati Devi & Anr. Page No. 11 of 17 2025.03.27 16:58:38 +0530 relief, plaintiff is entitled to on the basis of admission by the defendant. In case of "Charanjit Lal Mehra and Ors. vs Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan and Anr." AIR 2005 SC 2765 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is enacted for the purpose to expedite the trials and 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.
31. It is settled that the decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, can be passed where there is a clear, unambiguous and unequivocal admission made by one party of the case of the other party. However, no such straight jacket formula can be adopted. Each case has to be viewed in its own facts. The admission can be interred from the pleadings, documents placed on record or otherwise. Wherever there is a clear admission of facts of which it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed, a judgment can be passed.
32. It has been further laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in P.P.A. Impex Pvt. Ltd vs Mangal Sain Mittal, 166 (2010) DLT 84 that "as regards Order XII Rule 6 CPC is concerned, the Supreme Court has recommended resort to this provision to bring a quick end wherever a vexatious and false defence has been presented". The approach to be taken while dealing with an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, should be akin to what has been enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mechalac Engineers & Manufactures Vs. Basic Equipment Corporation Digitally signed by GAURAV RCA(DJ)No. 113/2024 GAURAV Date:
Sh. Ashwani Sain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Shyamwati Devi & Anr. Page No. 12 of 17 2025.03.27 16:58:48 +0530 (1976) 4 SCC 687 in the context of Order XXXVII CPC with regard to granting of leave to defend in a summary suit. If the defence amounts to moonshine, it should be summarily dismissed by not granting leave to defend and by decreeing the suit forthwith.
33. This legal position was further reiterated in Grammy Communications Pvt. Ltd. vs. EMAAR MGF Land Ltd. 202 (2013) DLT 756 wherein Hon'ble High Court has held that if the defence is found to be moonshine, the Court shall be justified in passing a decree on admission on the ground that the defendant has not disclosed a triable defence.
34. It is trite law that in a suit for possession filed by a landlord against the tenant, following three ingredients have to be established by the plaintiff: -
(a) there exists a landlord tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant
(b) rent of the premises being more than 3,500/- so as to exclude the applicability of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
(c) termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the transfer of property Act.
35. Now reverting back to the case in hand, landlord-tenant relationship is not in dispute, rent of property being more than Rs. 3500/- is also an admitted fact by defendants in their written statement. Thus, the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, are not attracted in this case. As far as termination of tenancy is concerned, plaintiffs served legal notice dated 18.02.2021, upon the defendants, which is also not in dispute. Even otherwise, the service of summons with the plaint itself amounts to notice under Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
RCA(DJ)No. 113/2024 2025.03.27
Sh. Ashwani Sain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Shyamwati Devi & Anr. Page No. 13 of 17 16:59:21
+0530
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Nopany Investments (P) Ltd vs. Santokh Singh (HUF), 146 (2008) DLT 217 (SC).
36. Though the Ld. Counsel for the defendants contended that Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is not applicable in the present case, as the plaintiffs had already received advance rent of Rs. 60,000/- for the entire year 2021 and therefore, acceptance of advance rent for the year, automatically extended the tenancy on a year-to-year basis, rendering the legal notice dated 18.02.2021, ineffective. However, this court is not convinced by this argument. Even if the tenancy were indeed from year to year, then it was required to be executed through a registered instrument as per mandate of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
37. As per Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it mandates that a lease of immovable property from year to year or for a term exceeding one year can only be created through a registered instrument. In the absence of such a registered lease deed, no tenancy from year to year can be legally recognized, and the tenancy is deemed to be a monthly tenancy governed by Section 106 of the said Act. Even of the sake of argument, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the defendants is believed to be gospel truth, then also, mere acceptance of advance rent for a longer period does not, by itself, create a year-to-year tenancy unless supported by a registered lease agreement. In the present case, since no registered document has been produced to establish a yearly tenancy, therefore, contention of the Ld. Counsel for the defendants is devoid of any merit. Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
RCA(DJ)No. 113/2024 2025.03.27
Sh. Ashwani Sain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Shyamwati Devi & Anr. Page No. 14 of 17 16:59:32
+0530
38. The defendant no. 1 in his written statement, duly admitted the landlord and tenant relationship and rate of rent Rs. 5,000/- per month. Moreover, during the pendency of the suit, defendant no. 1 also moved an application to deposit the rent for the year, 2022, amounting to Rs. 60,000/- along with arrears of electricity charges, which was allowed by the Ld. Trial Court, vide order dated 06.02.2024, which also affirming the landlord and tenant relationship and rate of rent being more than Rs.3500/- so, as to exclude the applicability of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
39. Furthermore, defendants no. 2 and 3, failed to clearly disclose their status as occupants in the suit property. Their joint written statement is totally silent on that aspect.
40. Apart from that, the main contention of the Ld. Counsel for the defendants that the suit property was given on pagdi basis vide receipt dated 10.11.1991 by the plaintiffs to Sh. Raj Kumar and Sh. Sanjay Kumar, upon payment of Rs. 2,90,000/- and that a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- exclusive of electricity charges, was agreed upon. Even for the sake of argument, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the defendants, is believed to be a gospel truth that the suit property was given on pagdi basis by the plaintiffs, then also the same is not legally sustainable in law as the concept of pagdi, even if assumed, does not negate the landlord-tenant relationship. Mere acceptance of pagdi does not create any ownership rights in favour tenant or transferee. The relationship between them remains that of landlord and tenant.
41. The concept of pagdi in respect of tenancy refers to a lump-sum amount paid by the tenant to the landlord at the time Digitally signed by GAURAV RCA(DJ)No. 113/2024 GAURAV Date:
Sh. Ashwani Sain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Shyamwati Devi & Anr. Page No. 15 of 17 2025.03.27 16:59:44 +0530 of induction but it does not create any ownership rights or even grant the tenant any permanent or protected tenancy, unless governed by specific rent control statutes. Even if pagdi was paid as alleged, the status of the party remains that of a tenant. The payment of pagdi cannot be construed as a sale or confer ownership rights to the tenant.
42. Since there is no registered instrument/sale deed in favour of defendants and in the absence of the same, the defendants are unauthorized occupants and are not entitled to retain possession of the suit property merely on the basis of an oral claim of pagdi. The plea of the Ld. Counsel for the defendants that the pagdi payment converts tenancy into ownership or permanent possession, is wholly misconceived in law.
43. In the light of aforesaid discussion and findings, and the settled legal position, governing the scope and applicability of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order/decree dated 03.09.2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The admissions made by the defendants in their written statements, coupled with the documents placed on record, were clear and unequivocal, with respect to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the termination of tenancy, and the fact that the possession of the suit property was not surrendered by the defendants despite due receipt of legal notice dated 18.02.2021. The Ld. Trial Court rightly concluded that the essential ingredients for passing a judgment on admission were satisfied, and accordingly, passed a decree of possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff no.1.
Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
2025.03.27 RCA(DJ)No. 113/2024 16:59:54 Sh. Ashwani Sain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Shyamwati Devi & Anr. Page No. 16 of 17 +0530
44. Since, the defendants have failed to demonstrate any perversity or material irregularity in the said impugned order or to raise any triable issue that would justify denial of relief at that stage. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits, and disposed of.
45. Consequently, the application under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC is also disposed of as dismissed. The impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court is hereby upheld. No orders as to costs.
46. Any pending application(s), if any, is also dismissed being infructuous.
47. A copy of this judgment alongwith the trial court record be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court for information.
48. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room as per rules. (Typed to the dictation directly, corrected and Digitally pronounced in open court on 27.03.2025). signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
2025.03.27 17:00:06 +0530 (GAURAV) DISTRICT JUDGE-01 SHAHDARA DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI Certified that this judgment contains 17 pages and each page bears my signature. Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV Date:
2025.03.27 17:00:11 +0530 (GAURAV) DISTRICT JUDGE-01 SHAHDARA DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI RCA(DJ)No. 113/2024 Sh. Ashwani Sain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Shyamwati Devi & Anr. Page No. 17 of 17