Delhi District Court
Mrs. Bina Mendiratta vs M/S Cement Corporation Of India Ltd on 15 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Ms. TANVI KHURANA,CIVIL JUDGE1(South)
SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI
In the Matter of
Civil Suit No.308/14
Case ID No. 02406C0187982012
1.Mrs. Bina Mendiratta
W/o Sh. J. C. Mendiratta
C130, Dayand Colony,
Lajpat NagarIV, New Delhi110024
2. Mr. J. C. Mendiratta
S/o Late Sh. R. L. Mendiratta
C130, Dayand Colony,
Lajpat NagarIV, New Delhi110024 .........Plaintiffs
Versus
M/s Cement Corporation of India Ltd.
Core5, Scope Complex
7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi110003
And also at:
Flat No. 101B,
87, Nehru Place, New Delhi110019 .........Defendant
Date of institution :03.08.2012/05.09.2014
Date of reserving the judgment :Nil
Date of pronouncement :15.07.2014
Decision : Decreed for the relief of
possession.
Suit for Possession (Ejectment), Recovery of Arrears of Rent,
Mesne Profits/ Damages and Other Reliefs
Present: None.
Suit No. 308/13
Bina Mendiratta Vs. Cement Corporation Page 1 of 5
JUDGMENT:
By the present order, I shall proceed to decide the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the plaintiff in the present matter.
2. In the present application the plaintiffs have submitted that:
(i) The defendant is tenant of the plaintiffs
(ii) The rate of rent at the premises is Rs. 3300/ per month along with Rs. 990.05/ per month as maintenance charges and hence is above Rs. 3500/ per month.
(iii) The notice of termination of tenancy was issued by plaintiffs to the defendant.
3. It is submitted that vide agreement to sell dated 29.09.1992, plaintiff no. 1 along with her mother in law Smt. Ganesh Devi purchased the suit premises and the plaintiff no. 1 and Smt. Ganesh Devi were attorned as landlords by the defendant and agreed rate of rent was also paid. Smt. Ganesh Devi bequeathed her share in the property to her son/ plaintiff no. 2. As it has not been disputed and there is an admission with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, hence the present application has been filed seeking decree of possession based upon the above admission.
4. On notice, defendant filed reply to the present application denying such admissions. It was submitted that there is clear admission on the part of the defendant and therefore, judgment on admission can not be passed unless clear, unambiguous and Suit No. 308/13 Bina Mendiratta Vs. Cement Corporation Page 2 of 5 unconditional admission is shown. It was prayed that the application be dismissed.
5. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff argued that there is clear admission on the part of plaintiff as the defendant has admitted the relationship as tenant and landlord and rate of rent is above Rs. 3500/ and notice U/S 106 Transfer of Property Act has been issued.
6. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the defendant counter argued that there is no clear admission on the part of the defendant. She argued primarily that the factum of issuance of notice is disputed and there is no unequivocal admission in regard to receipt of notice for termination of tenancy. She also relied upon Himani Alloys Ltd. Vs. Tata Steel Ltd., 2011 (7) SCALE 566.
7. I have heard the rival contentions raised by both the counsel and have also perused the case record meticulously with their kind assistance.
8. To decide an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is important to be ascertained that there is clear and unequivocal, unconditional admission on the part of the defendant in the pleadings or otherwise.
9. It is settled position of law that the admission contemplated by Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 be expressed or implied in the proceedings. The Hon'ble Court of Delhi in Laxmikant Shrikant HUF Vs M. M. Dastoor & Co. Pvt. Ltd., 71 (1998) DLT 564 has laid down three requisite Suit No. 308/13 Bina Mendiratta Vs. Cement Corporation Page 3 of 5 essentials to be establish for getting the possession in case of lessorlessee, namely:
(i)The relationship of landlord and tenant;
(ii)The tenancy has been validly terminated; and
(iii)The rent is more than Rs.3500/ and the suit is beyond the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
10. It can be noticed from the pleadings of the defendant that the jural relationship between landlord and tenant rather it is admitted by defendant that he has attorned the plaintiff as the landlord and has been paying rent regularly.
11. It was also disputed by the defendant that the rate of rent is less than Rs. 3500/ however, vide order dated 04.03.2013 this court had decided the preliminary issue that whether suit was barred by Section 3 of Delhi Rent Control Act against the defendant.
12. Now coming to the fact that the notice for temination of tenancy U/S 106 of Transfer of Property Act was not received by the defendant and hence, there is no admission as to the receipt of notice. It is well settled legal proposition that filing an eviction suit itself is a notice for termination of tenancy. Reliance can be placed upon M/s Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh (HUF) decided on 10.12.2007.
13. Therefore, it can be concluded that all the essentials under Order XII Rule 6 CPC have been made in the present case and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment on admission for the relief of possession of the suit property i.e. flat no. 101 B, First Floor, 87, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019. The defendant Suit No. 308/13 Bina Mendiratta Vs. Cement Corporation Page 4 of 5 is directed to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the premises within two months from the pronouncement of this order. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
14. However, as far as the other reliefs are concerned, the suit would continue.
Announced in the open court on 15th July 2014. (TANVI KHURANA) The judgment contains 05 pages, Civil Judge01 (South) all checked and signed by me. Saket Courts/New Delhi 15.07.2014 Suit No. 308/13 Bina Mendiratta Vs. Cement Corporation Page 5 of 5