Delhi District Court
Ms. Shakuntala Sharma vs Lalit Sharma S/O Dharam Pal Sharma on 20 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE OF SHAHDARA DISTRICT
AT KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
ID NO. 02402C0188932013
CS no. 274/14
Ms. Shakuntala Sharma
W/o Sh. Dharam Pal Sharma,
R/o H. No. 505C, Shivaji Gali,
100ft road, East Babur Pur,
Delhi110032
............... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Lalit Sharma S/o Dharam Pal Sharma
R/o H. No. 505C, Shivaji Gali,
100ft road, East Babur Pur,
Delhi110032
2. Smt. Namarata Sharma
W/o Shri Lalit Sharma,
R/o H. No. 505C, Shivaji Gali,
100ft road, East Babur Pur,
Delhi110032
.............. Defendants
Date of Institution : 26062013
Order reserved on : 10112015
Order passed on : 20112015
SUIT FOR POSSESSION
CS no. 274/14 Shakuntala Sharma vs Lalit Sharma & Ors 1 of 11
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order, I shall disposed off application U/O 12 Rule 6 CPC moved on behalf of plaintiff Smt. Shakuntala Sharma.
2. The facts set out by the plaintiff in her suit are that she is owner of property bearing no. 5C, Shivaji Gali, 100 foot road, East Babarpur, Delhi32, having area 250 sq. yards (hereinafter referred as suit property). Plaintiff pleaded that defendant no.1 is her son whereas defendant no. 2 is her daughterinlaw being wife of defendant no.1. Plaintiff pleaded that she allowed defendant no. 1 & 2 to reside in one room of suit property as shown in red colour in site plant. Plaintiff pleaded that the attitude of defendant no. 1 after few month of his marriage totally changed towards her and he is ignoring her and her family members whereas defendant no. 2 started misbehaving with her and other family member. Plaintiff further pleaded that defendant no. 2 started pressurizing her and defendant no. 1 to transfer the suit property in her name inspite of knowing the fact that defendant no. 1 has no right in the suit property. Plaintiff further pleaded that on 1212012 defendant no. 2 assaulted her husband Sh. D.P.Sharma by throwing landline phone and thereby her husband sustained serious injury on his nose. Further plaintiff pleaded that defendant no. 2 used to leave matrimonial home without informing anyone. Plaintiff also pleaded that defendant no. 2 many time threatened her and her husband for committing suicide and leaving behind a note blaming them. Plaintiff CS no. 274/14 Shakuntala Sharma vs Lalit Sharma & Ors 2 of 11 further pleaded that she is old lady of 69 year of age suffering from arthritics and various old age ailment but defendant no. 2 never show any mercy towards her. So she constrained to terminate the license of defendants to reside in suit property and served notice thereby called defendants to vacate the suit property. Defendants have not vacated the suit property hence Plaintiff filed the suit for possession against them.
3. Summon of suit was served upon both the defendants. Defendant no. 1 has not filed his written statement, hence his defence was closed vide order dated 13112013.
4. Defendant no. 2 contested the suit by filing written statement stating therein that plaintiff filed the suit with malafide intention to harass and humiliate her. Further suit is not maintainable as the actual owner of suit property is her mother in law/plaintiff who made statement before Ld. M.M, under Domestic Violence Act case that she will not dispossess her from suit property. Defendant no. 2 further pleaded that plaintiff filed instant suit in connivance with her son/defendant no. 1 to throw her from matrimonial house. On merit defendant no. 2 claimed that plaintiff has not placed any documentary evidence or any single complaint made by her or her husband against defendant no. 1 for his misbehavior. Further defendant no. 2 claimed that plaintiff alongwith her husband beat her mercilessly on 1212012 and in this event plaintiff threw the land line phone to hit her, but plaintiff CS no. 274/14 Shakuntala Sharma vs Lalit Sharma & Ors 3 of 11 husband came in front of her by chance and got hit by land line phone and received injury. Defendant no. 2 further claimed that plaintiff and her husband and defendant no. 1 conspired to dispossess her from her matrimonial home. Accordingly, she prayed for dismissal of suit.
5. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendant no. 2 wherein she admitted that interim order for residence passed in favour of defendant no. 2 by Ld. M.M. in D.V.Act case. Plaintiff reiterated that she is the owner of suit property. Other averments of plant were also reiterated.
6. Plaintiff in aforesaid application pleaded that defendant no. 2 has admitted material proportion of fact as made in the plaint, so no issue is required to be framed and therefore she is entitled for decree of possession against defendants.
7. Defendant no. 2 contested the application by filing the detailed reply.
8. I have heard the argument of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and defendant no. 2 and perused the material on record.
9. Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, provide as under :
"Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in CS no. 274/14 Shakuntala Sharma vs Lalit Sharma & Ors 4 of 11 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".
10. In order to pass a decree on the basis of admission made by a party to the suit, the admission must be clear and unequivocal. Decree cannot be passed in cases where the admissions are only conditional, unclear or same do not amount to a clear cut admission on the part of a party in view of the entire pleadings of the party. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Usha Rani and ors. v. Narula's Corner House Pvt. Ltd. & ors. 73, (1998) DLT, 124, in para 18 stated as follows.
"The object of Order XII Rule 6 CPC is to enable a party to obtain a speedy judgment at least, to the extent of the admissions of the defendant to which relief the plaintiff is entitled to. The rule permits the passing of the judgment at any stage without waiting for determination of other questions. It is equally settled that before a court can act under 12 Rule 6, the admission must be clear, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal. CS no. 274/14 Shakuntala Sharma vs Lalit Sharma & Ors 5 of 11 Admission in pleadings are either actual or constructive. Actual admission consist of facts expressly admitted either in pleadings or in answer to interrogatories. In a suit for ejectment, the factors which deserved to be taken into consideration in order to enable the court to pass a decree of possession favour of the plaintiff primarily are:
i) Existence of relationship of lesser and lessee or entry in possession of the suit property by defendant as tenant.
ii) Determination of such relation in any of the contingencies as envisaged in Section 111 of Transfer of Property Act."
11. From the pleadings of the parties following things are crystal clear that :
a) The plaintiff is the owner of suit property as it is clear from the reply of para 1 of plaint given by defendant no. 2 in written statement, wherein defendant no. 2 stated that it is matter of record. Further defendant no. 2 in para 3 of preliminary objection categorically stated that her mother in law/the plaintiff is the actual owner of suit property.
b) Defendant no. 1 is son of plaintiff whereas defendant no. 2 CS no. 274/14 Shakuntala Sharma vs Lalit Sharma & Ors 6 of 11 is daughterinlaw of plaintiff being wife of defendant no.1.
c) Defendant no. 1 & 2 is residing in one room of suit property as shown in red colour in site plan.
d) The relationship of plaintiff and her family is strained with defendant no. 2 who has filed case before CAW Cell, case under the provision of Domestic Violence Act and before Public Grievance Committee.
e) Defendant no. 2 has also admitted that Plaintiff has terminated the licence of defendants by serving legal notice as it is clear from the reply of para 23 of plaint given by defendant no. 2 that contents need no reply.
12. Even otherwise Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF) 2008 (2) SCC 728 held that "filing of suit is itself a notice to quit on the tenant and therefore, no notice to quit U/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act is necessary to enable the landlord to get the decree of possession. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court is here under: "in view of the matter, it is well settled that filing of an eviction suit under the general law itself is a notice to quit of the tenant. Therefore, we have no hestigation to hold that no notice to quite was necessary under Section 106 of the CS no. 274/14 Shakuntala Sharma vs Lalit Sharma & Ors 7 of 11 Transfer of Property Act in order to enable the respondent to get a decree of eviction against the appellant".
13. Ld. counsel for defendant no. 2 contended that plaintiff made statement before Ld. M.M., in Domestic Violence case that she will not dispossess the defendant no. 2 from the suit property, hence, plaintiff has no right to evict defendant from the suit property and her suit is not maintainable.
14. The aforesaid argument of Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2 has no merit on following count.
i) That defendant no. 2 is wife of plaintiff's son/defendant no.
1, so defendants are merely a licencee as plaintiff allowed them to reside in suit property and plaintiff is not dispossessing her but she is obtaining the possession by legal mode.
ii) Further defendant no. 2 has not claimed in her written statement that the suit property is share house hold or that the suit property is the joint property and belongs to her husband/defendant no. 1. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sudha Mishra vs Surya Chandra Mishra, 211 (2014) Delhi Law Times 537, held that :
"The legal position which can be culled out from the above reports is that daughterinlaw has no CS no. 274/14 Shakuntala Sharma vs Lalit Sharma & Ors 8 of 11 right to continue to occupy the selfacquired property of her parentsinlaw against their wishes more so when her husband has no independent right therein nor is living there, as it is not a 'shared household' within the meaning of Section 17(1) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Wife is entitled to claim a right in a shared household which means a house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or the house which belongs to joint family of which husband is a member. Daughterinlaw cannot assert her rights, if any, in the property of her parentsinlaw wherein her husband has no right, title or interest. She cannot continue to live in such a house of her parentsinlaw against their consent and wishes. In my view, even an adult son or daughter has no legal right to occupy the selfacquired property of the parents against their consent and wishes. A son or daughter if permitted to live in the house occupies the same as a gratuitous licensee and if such licence is revoked, he has to vacate the said property".
15. Today an application has been filed on behalf of defendant no. 2 for taking additional documents on record i.e., electricity & water bill in the name of defendant no. 1 qua suit property. Record reveals that Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2 has placed CS no. 274/14 Shakuntala Sharma vs Lalit Sharma & Ors 9 of 11 on record the said electricity & water bill in the name of defendant no. 1 qua suit property on 2962015. Copy of same were also supplied to the plaintiff who has not objected the same. Further on that day Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2 sought time to verify the fact whether suit property is also in the name of defendant no. 1 or not. It is pertinent to mention that merely because the electricity & water bill in the name of defendant no. 1, it does not mean that defendant no. 1 is the co owner of suit property particularly when defendant no. 2 inspite of sufficient opportunity has not placed any document to show that defendant no. 1 is also having any share in the suit property. It is also pertinent that defendant no. 2 specifically stated in her written statement that her motherinlaw i.e., plaintiff is the owner of suit property. In view of this, it appears that defendant no. 2 filed the application just to delay the disposal of the case.
16. In view of aforesaid discussion and on the basis of the pleading of parties. I am of consider opinion that plaintiff has made out a clear cut case for allowing her application U/O 12 Rule 6 CPC. Accordingly, plaintiff's application U/O 12 Rule 6 CPC is disposed off as allowed and therefore suit is decreed.
17. In view of the above, a decree for possession is passed in favour of plaintiff and against defendants in respect of portion of suit property bearing no. 505C, Shivaji Gali, 100ft road, East Babur Pur, Delhi110032, as shown in red colour in site plan. CS no. 274/14 Shakuntala Sharma vs Lalit Sharma & Ors 10 of 11
18. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (RAVINDER SINGH) TODAY i.e., 20 day of November, 2015 th ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE SHAHDARA(DISTRICT), KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI DELHI CS no. 274/14 Shakuntala Sharma vs Lalit Sharma & Ors 11 of 11