Delhi District Court
Smt. Sangeeta Gupta vs M/S B.R.Industries on 31 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-02 & WAQF TRIBUNAL :
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO.529/2022
CNR NO.DLND01-011276-2022
IN THE MATTER OF :
SMT. SANGEETA GUPTA
THROUGH ATTORNEY
SH. SAHIL GUPTA
R/O CB-317, RING ROAD,
NARAINA, NEW DELHI-110028
..........PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. M/S B.R.INDUSTRIES
CB-207, RING ROAD, NARAINA
NEW DELHI-110028
2. SH. RAJEEV SRIVASTAVA
SOLE PROPRIETOR
M/S B.R.INDUSTRIS,
R/O B-20, ASHA PARK,
HARI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110064
..........DEFENDANTS
DATE OF INSTITUTION OF SUIT : 23.12.2022
DATE OF ARGUMENTS : 22.07.2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 31.07.2023
DECISION : SUIT DECREED
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit by an owner/landlord against her tenant for the recovery of possession, arrears of rent, damages and mesne profit.
CS No.529/2022 Sangeeta Gupta Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 1 of 202. The brief facts, as disclosed in the plaint, are;
A) Plaintiff/Smt. Sangeeta Gupta is the window of Late Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta. Plaintiff has filed the present suit through her son Sahil Gupta, who has been authorized to do so vide a Special Power of Attorney dated 01.12.2022. Late Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta, husband of the plaintiff, was the owner of property bearing No.CB-210, Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi. In the year 2014 (date not disclosed), he rented out three rooms on the first floor of this property to defendant No.2/Rajeev Srivastava on a monthly rent of Rs.17,000/- per month excluding electricity & water charges. Defendant No.1/B.R.Industries is stated to be the sole proprietorship concern of defendant No.2.
B) Plaintiff claims that defendant No.2 became a friend of her husband and taking advantage of the friendship, he continued to remain in possession of the property without paying rent and electricity charges. Defendant No.2 is stated to be a habitual defaulter in paying the rent. Plaintiff has mentioned that defendant has not paid the rent since the month of January 2018. She has disclosed that after repeated requests, defendant No.2 handed her over a cheque No.548078 dated 07.12.2020 for a sum of Rs.2,19,000/- towards part payment of the arrears of rent. Before plaintiff could present the cheque, defendant No.2 approached her with a promise to deposit the rent within a month and requested her not to present the cheque with the banker. Defendant No.2 failed to honour this promise. C) Husband of the plaintiff died in the month of February 2018 (date not disclosed). Plaintiff requested defendant No.2 to vacate the property in the month of January 2021 but he failed to do so. During the course of mutual discussion, defendant No.2 gave a handwritten undertaking dated CS No.529/2022 Sangeeta Gupta Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 2 of 20 01.05.2022 to pay not only the arrears of rent but also hand over the possession of the rented premises by 15.06.2022. Despite giving the said undertaking, defendant No.2 neither paid rent nor vacated the rented premises. Plaintiff has disclosed an incident dated 19.08.2022 mentioning that on the said date, her brother-in-law approached defendant No.2 for the arrears of rent and requested him to vacate the rented premises. An altercation took place between the parties and the matter was report to the local police station. Thereafter, defendant No.2 gave a fresh undertaking on 19.08.2022 to vacate the property by 30.08.2022 and pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as part payment towards the arrears of rent. Despite these undertaking, defendant No.2 failed to hand over the possession of the rented premises. Rent also remained unpaid.
D) Plaintiff served a notice dated 03.11.2022 upon defendants asking them to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the suit premises. Defendants did not bother to give reply to the said notice. Plaintiff served another notice dated 16.11.2022 on the defendants. Defendants again did not give reply but this time, issued a notice dated 05.12.2022 admitting the tenancy and making allegations against the son of the plaintiff. Left with no other alternative, plaintiff filed the present suit seeking recovery of possession of rented premises, arrears of rent & electricity charges and mesne profits.
3. Defendants were served through ordinary process. Defendant No.2 contested the suit by filing written statement. He mentioned that defendant No.1 is a company and premises were taken on rent for running its registered office. He advanced contradictory pleas. He mentioned in preliminary objections that he took on rent two premises i.e. CB-207 (one room) & CB-210 (three rooms) on a rent of Rs.21,000/- per month. He CS No.529/2022 Sangeeta Gupta Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 3 of 20 came up with a version that he took the premises on rent from Ashwani Kumar Gupta, who is the brother of the husband of plaintiff. He contradicted this version by admitting in the para-wise reply that the premises were rented out by the husband of plaintiff. He admitted the landlord tenant relationship. He admitted having taken the premises on rent. He mentioned that he took the premises on rent for a limited period of 11 months. He admitted having issued a cheque to the plaintiff but mentioned that the said cheque was handed over as a friendly loan. He also admitted having signed the undertaking dated 01.05.2022 and 19.08.2022 but mentioned that his signatures were forcibly taken on a blank paper. He came up with a story that he advanced a friendly loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to Ashwani Gupta at the time of inception of tenancy. He claimed that the said loan amount has not been repaid. He denied being in arrears of rent.
4. Pleadings completed. Plaintiff filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. Defendant filed reply to the said application.
5. I have heard the arguments.
6. Defendants addressed arguments mentioning that the suit is not liable to be decreed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. Defendants have relied on the decisions in the matter of "Hari Steel & General Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs Daljeet Singh & Ors." V(2019) SLT 262, "State Bank of India Vs Midland Industries" AIR 1988 Del 153 and "Sh. Madhi Vibhag Khand Udyog Sehkari Mandali Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr." AIR 1988 Del 115. On the other hand, counsel for plaintiff submitted that the suit CS No.529/2022 Sangeeta Gupta Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 4 of 20 should be decreed in view of unequivocal admissions in the written statement.
7. I have perused the record in the light of respective arguments.
8. Record shows that defendant No.2 has made clear and unequivocal admissions in the written statement. He has admitted the landlord and tenant relationship. He came up with a version that defendant No.1/B.R.Industries is a company but did not place on record even a single document to support this version. He denied the service of legal notice. He presented contradictory versions about the service of legal notice. He denied the service of legal notice in the preliminary objections but admitted the same in the para-wise reply of the written statement. He has taken false and bogus pleas. None of the pleas raised by him is legally sustainable.
9. I have gone through the judgments relied on by the defendants. The judgments have been passed in different set of facts and circumstances. None of the judgments pertains to a dispute between a landlord and tenant. It has been held in "Payal Vision Ltd. Vs Radhika Chaudhary"
2000(7) SCC 120 that in a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant, all that is required to be established is the existence of landlord tenant relationship and the termination of tenancy either by lapse of time or by means of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The observations made in the matter as under:
"6. In a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant whose tenancy is not protected under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, all that is required to be established by the CS No.529/2022 Sangeeta Gupta Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 5 of 20 plaintiff-landlord is the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the termination of the tenancy either by lapse of time or by notice served by the landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. So long as these two aspects are not in dispute the Court can pass a decree in terms of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, which reads as under:
"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 upon in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.
7. The above sufficiently empowers the Court trying the suit to deliver judgment based on admissions whenever such admissions are sufficient for the grant of the relief prayed for. Whether or not there was an unequivocal and clear admission on either of the two aspects to which we have referred above and which are relevant to a suit for possession against a tenant is, therefore, the only question that falls for determination in this case and in every other case where the plaintiff seeks to invoke the powers of the Court under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC and prays for passing of the decree on the basis of admission. Having said that we must add that whether or not there is a clear admission upon the two aspects noted above is a matter to be seen in the fact situation prevailing in each case.
Admission made on the basis of pleadings in a given case cannot obviously be taken as an admission in a different fact situation."
CS No.529/2022 Sangeeta Gupta Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 6 of 2010.It has been held in "Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. Vs Union Bank of India and Ors." AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2740 that discretion under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC can be exercised by the court even in the absence of an application. The observation made in the matter are as under:
"12. As to the object of the Order XII, Rule 6 we need not say anything more than what the legislature itself has said when the said provision came to be amended. In the objects and reasons set out while amending the said rule, 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 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. - We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed. Textually, there is nothing in Order 12 Rule 6 which limits the powers of the Court to await the application of the party seeking a decree. A decree can be conveniently and expeditiously drawn even in the absence of an application by the party seeking it and if the requisite condition spelt out in the provision exists."
11.It has been held in "Amit Kumar Vs Amit Kumar" FAO (OS) 589/2015 NCM No.24212/2015, decided on 23.11.2015 by a Division Bench of High Court of Delhi that the court while considering the applicability of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC has to consider whether the so called defence raised by the defendant is plausible or is completely sham. It was observed that merely because the defendant denies the claim of the CS No.529/2022 Sangeeta Gupta Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 7 of 20 plaintiff would not ipso facto imply that there is a defence raised by the plaintiff that requires framing of issues and relegating the parties to trial. It was held that merely because defendant raises some dispute, it cannot be said that there is no unequivocal admission. It was observed in Uttam Singh Duggal & Company Ltd.'s case (supra) that no trial is required in the matter where the defence raised is a moonshine.
12.In the matter of "Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kavit P. Lalwani"
2012 (191) DLT 594, the High Court of Delhi laid down broad principles for dealing with a suit for ejectment filed by a landlord against the tenant, which are as under:
"26.1 Upon expiry of the term of the lease or on termination of the monthly lease by a notice to quit, the lessee must vacate the property on his own and not wait for the lessor to bring a suit where he can raise all kinds of contests in order to profit from Court delays.
26.2 Expiry of lease by efflux of time results in the determination of the relationship between the lessor and the lessee and no notice of determination of the lease is required. Mere acceptance of rent by the landlord from the tenant in possession after the lease has been determined either by efflux of time or by notice to quit would not create a tenancy so as to confer on the erstwhile tenant the status of a tenant or a right to be in possession.
26.3 Notice of termination of lease under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act sent by registered post to the tenant is deemed to be served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
26.4 The object of the termination notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is to communicate the intention of the landlord that he wants the premises back and to give 15 CS No.529/2022 Sangeeta Gupta Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 8 of 20 days time to vacate. Such notice is not a pleading but a mere communication of the intention of the recipient. Such notice is to be liberally construed as the tenants only right is to get notice of 15 days to vacate. The tenant is under a statutory obligation to vacate the subject property on the expiry of 15 days of the notice.
26.5 A suit for ejectment is different from a title suit for possession against a trespasser. In a suit for possession against a trespasser, title can be in dispute but in a suit for ejectment against an erstwhile tenant, ordinarily there is no dispute of title as the tenant is estopped from denying the landlords title under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. The dispute is generally on two counts; one, about the assent to continue after the expiry of the fixed term lease by efflux of time and second, about the valid termination in case of monthly lease. The tenant resisting the claim for possession has to plead with sufficiently detailed pleadings, particulars and documents why he must not be ejected and what right he has to continue in possession. There is really nothing else to be tried in such a suit. A suit of this nature can ordinarily be decided on first hearing itself either on the pleadings and the documents or, if need be, by examining the parties under Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act.
26.6 A suit for ejectment of a lessee is not a type of a case where by forging a postal receipt and falsely claiming the issue of the notice to quit, the plaintiff would gain any particular advantage for he could have always served a notice and filed a suit three weeks later. On the other hand, by serving a self- serving denial, the defendant seeks to get an advantage of dragging the proceedings and continuing to enjoy the property without having to pay the current market rent. Having regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct and probabilities, if a notice which can be issued and served again without loss of opportunity, the probability that a person would file a fake proof of sending is nil. On the other hand, if a notice is of a type which had to be served prior to an event that has already occurred, and by its CS No.529/2022 Sangeeta Gupta Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 9 of 20 very nature cannot be remedied by a fresh notice, there may be a possibility of it being faked such as a notice exercising the option to renew lease before its expiry. In that case, the Court will look at it differently.
26.7 The pleadings are the foundation of litigation and must set-forth sufficient factual details. Experience has shown that all kinds of pleadings are introduced and even false and fabricated documents are filed in civil cases because there is an inherent profit in continuation of possession. In a suit for ejectment, it is necessary for the defendant to plead specifically as to the basis on which he is claiming a right to continue in possession. A defendant has to show a subsisting right to continue as a lessee. No issue arises on vague pleadings. A vague denial of the receipt of a notice to quit is not sufficient to raise an issue. To rebut the presumption of service of a notice to quit, the defendant has to plead material particulars in the written statement such as where after receiving the plaint and the documents, the defendant has checked-up with the Post-Office and has obtained a certificate that the postal receipt filed by the plaintiff was forged and was not issued by the concerned Post Office.
26.8 A self-serving denial by the defendant and more so in these types of cases, cannot hold back the Court from exercising its jurisdiction to decree a suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Raising a plea of non- receipt of notice to quit and seeking an issue on it is obviously to drag on the litigation and keep on holding to the suit property without having to pay the current market rentals, is not sufficient to raise an issue and, therefore, liable to be rejected.
26.9 If such a plea of denial of notice is treated as sufficient to non-suit the plaintiff, the plaintiff will have serve a fresh notice to quit and then bring a fresh suit where again the defendant would deny the receipt of notice to seek an issue and trial. The process would go on repeating itself with another notice, in fact, repeat ad-infinitum and in this manner, the defendant will be able to effectively stay indefinitely till CS No.529/2022 Sangeeta Gupta Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 10 of 20 the plaintiff settles with him for a price. The Court cannot remain a silent spectator and allow the abuse of process of law. The eyes of the Courts are wide enough to see the truth and do justice so that the faith of the people in the institution of Courts is not lost.
26.10 In view of the amendment brought about to Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act by Act 3 of 2003, no objection with regard to termination of tenancy is permitted on the ground that the legal notice did not validly terminate the tenancy by a notice ending with the expiry of the tenancy month, as long as a period of 15 days was otherwise given to the tenant to vacate the property. The intention of Legislature is therefore clear that technical objections should not be permitted to defeat the decree for possession of tenanted premises once the tenant has a period of 15 days for vacating the tenanted premises.
26.11 A suit for possession cannot be dismissed on the ground of invalidity of notice of termination because the tenant is only entitled to a reasonable time of 15 days to vacate the property. Therefore, even if the notice of termination is held to be invalid, service of summons of the suit for possession can be taken as notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure but in that event the landlord would be entitled to mesne profits after the expiry of 15 days from the date of the receipt of summons and not from the date of notice of termination.
26.12 The purpose of Order XII Rule 6 CPC is to give the plaintiff a right to speedy judgment. The thrust of amendment of Order XII Rule 6 is that in an appropriate case a party on the admission of the other party can press for judgment as a matter of legal right. If a dishonest litigant is permitted to delay the judgment on the ground that he would show during the trial that he had not received the notice, the very purpose of the amendment would be frustrated.
26.13 Under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, the CS No.529/2022 Sangeeta Gupta Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 11 of 20 lessee is estopped from denying the title of the transferee landlord. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no tenant of immovable property shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny the title of the landlord meaning thereby that so long as the tenant has not surrendered the possession, he cannot dispute the title of the landlord. Howsoever, defective the title of the landlord may be, a tenant is not permitted to dispute the same unless he has surrendered the possession of his landlord.
26.14 A lease of a immovable property is determined by forfeiture in case the lessee renounces his character by setting up a title in a third person. The effect of such a disclaimer is that it brings to an end the relationship of landlord and tenant and such a tenant cannot continue in possession. Section 111(g)(2) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is based on public policy and the principle of estoppel.
26.15 There is a flood of litigation unnecessarily burdening the Courts only because obdurate tenants refuse to vacate the tenanted premises even after their tenancy period expires by efflux of time or the monthly tenancy has been brought to an end by service of a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It has become quite common for the tenants whose tenancy has been terminated to continue the occupation to drive the landlords to file suits for possession and mesne profits and thereafter raise false claims and defences to continue the possession of the premises. The motivation of the tenant to litigate with the landlord is that he wants to continue the occupation on payment of rent fixed years ago. The continuation of possession in such cases should therefore be permitted upon payment of market rent. In that case, inherent intent of the unscrupulous tenant to continue frivolous litigation would be reduced to a large extent."
13.Coming to the facts of the present case, defendant No.2 has admitted the landlord tenant relationship. Plaintiff mentioned in para-2 of the plaint that defendants were inducted as tenants in the suit premises. In response, CS No.529/2022 Sangeeta Gupta Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 12 of 20 defendant No.2 admitted in the written statement that he was inducted as a tenant for a limited period of 11 months. He has categorically mentioned in the para-wise reply that there is no dispute qua the landlord and tenant relationship. From the pleadings of the parties and other material placed on record, there remains no scope for doubt that defendant No.2 has admitted the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. The admissions made by the defendant are unequivocal.
14.Now, coming to the aspect of termination of tenancy. It is an admitted case of the parties that defendant No.2 was inducted as a tenant for a limited period of time. Defendant No.2 has admitted in the written statement that he was inducted as a tenant for a limited period of 11 months. It appears from the record that after expiry of the lease period, defendant No.2 continued to occupy the rented premises with the consent of the husband of plaintiff. It is apparent from the pleadings of the parties that the lease expired by efflux of time. In such circumstances, no notice of determination of the lease was required. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision in the matter of "Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra) wherein it has been categorically held that in case, expiry of lease by efflux of time results in determination of the relationship between the lessor and lessee, no notice of determination of lease is required. Further, it has been held in the matter of "Jeevan Diesel Vs Jasbir Singh Chadha" 182 (2011) DLT 402 that service of summons of a suit for possession by itself is sufficient notice to the tenant and, therefore, denial of notice by tenant is of no consequence. Thus, the denial of service of notice does not advance the cause of defendant.
CS No.529/2022 Sangeeta Gupta Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 13 of 2015.Record shows that defendant No.2 had been continuously shifting his stand about the service of legal notice. He mentioned at one place in the written statement that no legal notice was served upon him but admitted the service of notice in para-wise reply to the reply of para no.15 of the plaint. Plaintiff disclosed in para-15 of the plaint that a notice dated 03.11.2022 was served on defendant No.2 whereby he was asked to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the suit property. Defendant No.2 admitted the contents of para no.15 in the written statement by mentioning that the contents of the same are a matter of record. Plaintiff further disclosed in para no.16 of the plaint that another notice dated 06.11.2022 was served on defendant No.2. In response, defendant No.2 did not specifically deny the service of the legal notice in para-wise reply of the written statement. The evasive replies given by the defendant clearly show that he has no defence to the plaintiff's claim. He has come up with a version that at the inception of tenancy, he advanced a loan of Rs.5 lac to the brother of the husband of the plaintiff. He mentioned that the loan has not been repaid. The pleas appear to be false and bogus. These pleas, even if taken to be correct, does not entitle defendant No.2 to continue to occupy the rented premises.
16.Defendant No.2 has not paid the arrears of rent. Plaintiff has disclosed that defendant No.2 is in arrears of rent since January 2018. He gave a specific undertaking to the plaintiff that he would vacate the rented premises by 15.01.2022 but failed to do so. Plaintiff has repeatedly served him with notices to vacate the rented premises but he has failed to do so. He continues to occupy the rented premises without paying rent to the landlord. No person can continue to occupy the rented accommodation CS No.529/2022 Sangeeta Gupta Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 14 of 20 without paying rent to the landlord. The plea taken by defendant No.2 that plaintiff is obligated to return the loan amount does not hold ground. Defendant No.2 has neither filed any counter claim nor has he claimed set off in respect of the alleged repayment of loan. No tenant can resist a suit for eviction on such baseless grounds.
17.It has been held in the matter of "Pradeep Khanna Vs Renu Khetrapal"
(RFA No.638/2014, decided by the High Court of Delhi on 10.04.2015) that a tenant, whose tenancy has been terminated, should not be allowed to continue to occupy the premises on the basis of bogus and false defence. In this matter, the High Court cited with approval various case laws which are squarely applicable in the facts & circumstances of the present case. Some of the decisions cited by the High Court of Delhi are;
"20.1 In 'Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria', the Supreme Court held that false claims and defences are serious problems with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever escalating prices of the real estate. The Supreme Court held as under:-
"False claims and false defences"
84. False claims and defences are really serious problems with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever escalating prices of the real estate. Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties is dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party will tire out and ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge amount. This happens because of the enormous delay in adjudication of cases in our Courts. If pragmatic approach is adopted, then this problem can be minimized to a large extent."
20.2 In 'Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010)' 2 SCC 114, the CS No.529/2022 Sangeeta Gupta Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 15 of 20 Supreme Court observed that a new creed of litigants have cropped up in the last 40 years who do not have any respect for truth and shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. The observations of the Supreme Court are as under:-
"1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., 'Satya' (truth) and 'Ahimsa' (non- violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice- delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post- Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.
2. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final."
(Emphasis supplied) 20.3 In 'Satyender Singh v. Gulab Singh' 2012 (129) DRJ 128, the Division Bench of this Court following Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (supra) observed that the Courts are flooded with litigation with false and incoherent pleas and tainted evidence led by the CS No.529/2022 Sangeeta Gupta Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 16 of 20 parties due to which the judicial system in the country is choked and such litigants are consuming Courts' time for a wrong cause.
The observations of this Court are as under:-
"2. As rightly observed by the Supreme Court, Satya is a basic value of life which was required to be followed by everybody and is recognized since many centuries. In spite of caution, courts are continued to be flooded with litigation with false and incoherent pleas and tainted evidence led by the parties. The judicial system in the country is choked and such litigants are consuming courts time for a wrong cause. Efforts are made by the parties to steal a march over their rivals by resorting to false and incoherent statements made before the Court. Indeed, it is a nightmare faced by a Trier of Facts; required to stitch a garment, when confronted with a fabric where the weft, shuttling back and forth across the warp in weaving, is nothing but lies. As the threads of the weft fall, the yarn of the warp also collapses; and there is no fabric left."
(Emphasis supplied) 20.4 In 'State Bank of Patiala v. Chander Mohan Jain' 1996 RLR 404, the Division Bench of this Court observed that it has become quite common for tenants whose tenancies have been terminated to continue occupation as trespassers and drive the landlords to file suit for eviction and profits with a view to see how far the patience of the landlords may last. The observation of this Court is reproduced hereunder:-
"24. ....It has become quite common for tenants, whose tenancies have been terminated validly, to continue occupation as trespassers, drive the landlords to file suits for eviction and profits with a view to see how far the patience of the landlords may last or how far the landlords or their legal representatives could fight the tenants-particularly if the tenant had stopped payment of admitted rents.CS No.529/2022 Sangeeta Gupta Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 17 of 20
It is rather unfortunate that even public sector bodies like the appellant are taking such postures and driving landlords from pillar to post..."
18.Coming back to the present matter, on the demise of her husband, plaintiff has become a co-owner of the rented property. She has stepped into the shoes of her husband. It has been held in the matter of "S.K.Puri Vs Smt. Sarla Chawla" 1995 (1) AD Del 485 that even one of the co-owner of the rented property can sue the tenant for obtaining the possession. Moreover, the question of the title of the landlord is immaterial. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 estoppes a tenant from challenging the title of the landlord. The legal position in this regard has been settled by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of "Mangat Ram Vs Sardar Mehartan Singh" (1987) 4 SCC 319 and "Anar Devi (Smt.) Vs Nathu Ram" (1994) 4 SSC 251. In the later case, Supreme Court of India observed:
"13. This Court in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, has also ruled that in a suit for eviction by landlord, the tenant is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord because of Section 116 of the Act. The Judicial Committee in Kumar Krishna Prasad Lal Singha Deo Vs Baraboni Coal Concern Ltd., when had occasion to examine the contention based on the words 'at the beginning of the tenancy' in Section 116 of the Evidence Act, pronounced that they do not give a ground for a person already in possession of land becoming tenant of another, to contend that there is no estoppel against his denying his subsequent lessor's title. Ever since, the accepted position is that Section 116 of the Evidence Act applies and estops even a person already in possession as tenant under one landlord from denying the title of his subsequent landlord when once he acknowledges him as his landlord by attornment or conduct. Therefore, a tenant of immovable property under landlord who becomes a tenant under another landlord by accepting him to be the CS No.529/2022 Sangeeta Gupta Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 18 of 20 owner who had derived title from the former landlord, cannot be permitted to deny the latter's title, even when he is sought to be evicted by the latter on a permitted ground."
19.Thus, in view of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, defendant No.2 is estopped from denying or questioning the ownership of the plaintiff. The defence that plaintiff is not competent to file the present suit is no defence to the plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff has placed on record all the relevant documents of the ownership of the suit property. Admittedly, defendant No.2 is a tenant in the suit property, who came in possession of the property only through the husband of the plaintiff. The challenge to the ownership of the plaintiff and her entitlement to file the present suit are not a legal plea and the same is liable to be rejected.
20.In the light of discussions made in the afore-mentioned paras, I am of the considered opinion that defendants have made clear and unequivocal admissions in the written statement. The relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted. Defendants are occupying the property without paying rent. Defendant No.2 has admitted the rate of rent of Rs.17000/- per month in para no.7 of the para-wise reply of the written statement. He has also admitted that he has not paid the rent since the month of January 2018 as there is no specific denial in para-8 of the para-wise reply of the written statement. The object of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is to enable a party to obtain a speedy judgment on the basis of the admissions made by the defendants. This appears to be an apt case where the discretion vested in the court under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC should be exercised. In view of unequivocal admissions in the written statement, it is impossible for the defendant to defend the plaintiff's claim even if the matter is put to CS No.529/2022 Sangeeta Gupta Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 19 of 20 trial. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.
21.Since, the rate of rent and the period from which the same is due are admitted, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of rent. The suit is accordingly partially decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants with following reliefs:
i. A decree of possession of three rooms on the first floor of property bearing bearing No.CB-210, Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi. (More specifically shown in site plan).
ii. A decree of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.17,000/- per month from the month of January 2018.
iii. Cost of the suit.
22.Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in open Court on 31.07.2023 (Sudhanshu Kaushik) Addl. District Judge-02 & Waqf Tribunal, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi/31.07.2023 CS No.529/2022 Sangeeta Gupta Vs M/s B.R.Industries & Anr. Page 20 of 20