Delhi District Court
Smt. Rajni Gupta vs Mr. S.S. Kumar on 11 September, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRADEEP CHADDAH
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CS/291/13
Smt. Rajni Gupta,
W/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta,
R/o E1071, Saraswati Vihar,
Delhi110 034. ......Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. S.S. Kumar
R/o D157, 7th Floor,
New Town CGHS Ltd., Antariksha Apartment,
Plot No. D3, Sector14 Extn.,
Rohini, Delhi110 085. .....Defendant
Date of Institution : 20.12.2013
Date of Arguments : 10.09.2015
Date of Judgment : 11.09.2015
JUDGMENT :
1. I will be disposing off an application moved U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC by the plaintiff and also an 'application for counterclaim' moved by defendant by way of this order.
2. Before proceeding further I would like to give brief Rajni Gupta Vs. S.S. Kumar Page no. 1 of 12 2 background of the case. Plaintiff Mrs. Rajni Gupta filed the present suit against defendant Mr. S.S. Kumar. She claimed that she alongwith her husband were owners of flat no. D157 situated on 7th floor in New Town CGHS namely Antariksha Apartment, Plot No. D3, in Sector14, Extn. Rohini, Delhi. The flat was let out to defendant for 11 months w.e.f. 01.07.02 at Rs. 10,000/ per month. Upon expiry of agreement, defendant requested plaintiff for extension. She allowed the request and the rent was increased from Rs. 10,000/ to Rs. 12,000/ per month. No new written agreement was executed. The oral tenancy was extended from time to time. Lastly as per mutual agreement, rent was fixed at Rs. 25,000/ per month.
3. Plaintiffs requested defendant to vacate the property but he did not oblige. Plaintiffs claimed that at present market rent of the flat in occupation of the defendant is Rs. 45,000/ per month. Defendant was liable to pay additional Rs. 20,000/ per month towards difference of market rent and the rent actually paid. In the present suit plaintiffs sought decree of possession alongwith decree in the sum of Rs. 2,20,000/ towards mesne profits and damages and Rajni Gupta Vs. S.S. Kumar Page no. 2 of 12 3 also Rs. 45,000/ per month till actual vacation of the property alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. They also sought permanent injunction restraining defendant from creating any third party interest or right in the property and also mandatory injunction seeking directions to the tenant to pay electricity and water charges to the authorities and also maintenance charges levied by the housing society.
4. Defendant filed a reply wherein he admitted relationship between them. He also admitted that property had been let out to him at Rs. 10,000/ per month. He further claimed to have increased rent periodically on his own. He claimed that he had booked the house in a society which caught into legal problems.
5. Thereafter plaintiffs moved an application U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC wherein they claimed that defendant had admitted relationship between them. He had also admitted that he had taken the property @ Rs. 10,000/ per month. They prayed that Court should pass decree U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC directing defendant to hand over the property and any other order which is deemed fit.
Rajni Gupta Vs. S.S. Kumar Page no. 3 of 12 4
6. Defendant filed reply to the application wherein he claimed that the suit had been filed without serving notice terminating the tenancy. He further claimed plaintiffs were blowing hot and cold. The judgments relied upon by the plaintiffs were not applicable. There was a triable issue whether requirement of plaintiffs for the property was bonafide or malafide. He prayed for dismissal of the application with heavy cost.
7. Defendant thereafter also filed counterclaim wherein he admitted that he was a tenant of the plaintiffs and he had occupied the same by virtue of valid rent agreement dt. 26.6.02. He further admitted that rate of rent was Rs. 10,000/ per month and security amount of Rs. 1 lac was also paid to the plaintiffs. Further in the counterclaim it was claimed that rent agreement was not renewed in writing. However rent was being paid regularly. He (defendant) on his own gave excess amount to the landlord for his needs apart from each and every premium of rent (sic). Thus in all he has made excess payment of Rs. 8,52,000/ and in the counterclaim he sought refund of Rs. 8,52,000/ alongwith Rs. 1,20,000/ which he had spent on repairs and maintenance of the tenanted premises. He sought Rajni Gupta Vs. S.S. Kumar Page no. 4 of 12 5 decree in the sum of Rs. 10,72,000/.
8. I have heard Ld. counsel for the parties earlier, yesterday and also today. Today Sh. Kanwar S.N. Ld. counsel for plaintiff Sh. Kanwar S.N. made a statement that his clients were willing to receive rent @ Rs. 25,000/ uptill 31.07.14 and were willing to forgo rent from 01.08.14 to 31.03.15 and confine their claim to Rs. 25,000/ per month.
9. Order XII Rule 6 CPC 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."
Rajni Gupta Vs. S.S. Kumar Page no. 5 of 12 6
10. The object behind enacting Order XII Rule 6 CPC is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment to the extent of admissions made by the defendant. Court should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this rule, as object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment.
11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. vs. Union Bank of India - AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2740 had observed when statement made in the proceedings in the Board of Directors' meeting, as well as the pleadings read together, lead to unambiguous and clear admission, the same can be relied upon in passing the judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
12. My Lord Mr. Justice Jayant Nath in Ishpinder Kochhar vs. Deluxe Dentellers (P) Ltd. & Another - 207 (2014) DLT 689 held as follows:
"Clearly there is a bald denial of the calculations put forth by the plaintiff in the plaint. The only stand is that rent remained stationery at Rs.2650/ per month. Order 8 Rule 3, CPC provides Rajni Gupta Vs. S.S. Kumar Page no. 6 of 12 7 that it shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact. Order 8 Rule 4, CPC provides that where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively but must answer the point of substance. Similarly, Order 8 Rule 5, CPC reads as follows : " Specific denial. [(1)] Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability: Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. [(2)] Where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a disability, but the Court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved."
Rajni Gupta Vs. S.S. Kumar Page no. 7 of 12 8 The denial as contained in para 3 in the written statement is clearly evasive and does not answer the point in substance of the averment as given in the corresponding para of the plaint. I came to the conclusion as the calculations, taking into account the enhancement clause are not denied. What is stated is that the rent remained stationery at Rs.2650/ per month."
My Lord towards end held : "Reference may also be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Usha Rani vs. Nirulas Corner House Pvt. Ltd., 73 (1998) DLT 124 para 18 of which read as follows : "The object of Order 12 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 Order 12 Rule 6, the admission must be clear, unambiguous, Rajni Gupta Vs. S.S. Kumar Page no. 8 of 12 9 unconditional and unequivocal. Admissions in pleadings are either actual or constructive. Actual admissions consist of facts expressly admitted either in pleadings or in answer to interrogatories. In such a suit for ejectment, the factors which deserves to be taken into consideration in order to enable the Court to pass a decree of possession favour of the plaintiff primarily are (1) Existence of relationship of Lesser and Lessee or entry in possession of the suit property by defendant as tenant; (2) Determination of such relation in any of the contingencies as envisaged in Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act."
13. In the case in hand, defendant virtually admitted case of the plaintiff in toto. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. Santokh Singh (HUF) : 2008 (2) SCC 728 held as follows:
" In any view of the matter, it is well settled that filing of an eviction suit under the general law itself is a notice to quit on the tenant. Therefore, we have no hesitation Rajni Gupta Vs. S.S. Kumar Page no. 9 of 12 10 to hold that no notice to quit was necessary under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act in oder to enable the respondent to get a decree of eviction against the appellant."
14. Thus it is clear that plaintiffs are entitled to relief which they have sought duly toned down by statement made today in the Court. They are entitled to decree of possession of suit property which is a flat bearing no. D157 situated on the 7th floor, New Town CGHS, Antariksha Apartment, Plot no. D3, Sector14 Extn., Rohini, Delhi. Further plaintiffs had sought decree in the sum of Rs. 5,20,000/. I find on record copy of rent receipt for the period 01.12.13 to 31.7.14. It clearly indicates rate of rent as Rs. 25,000/ per month. Even defendant/tenant filed a chart indicating payments made. By his own admission he has been paying Rs. 25,000/ per month from 01.04.13 onwards. By their own admissions plaintiffs have received rent uptill 31.7.14. However according to defendant he has paid rent uptill 31.03.15. Going by stand taken by defendant, I direct defendant to pay rent @ Rs. 25,000/ per month from 01.04.15 till he vacates the property. I further restrain him from subletting or Rajni Gupta Vs. S.S. Kumar Page no. 10 of 12 11 creating any third party interest in the suit premises since tenant has no business to part with possession to a third person. He is duty bound to handover possession to the landlord only. He has been enjoying water, electricity and maintenance provided by the society. He is further directed to clear all bills. He shall be entitled to adjust security amount of Rs. 1 lac which he had paid to the plaintiffs which also finds mention in the rent agreement.
15. Now I shall deal with counterclaim filed by the defendant. In the counterclaim he had admitted that he was let out the premises @ Rs. 10,000/ per month. However he made a strange claim in the counterclaim that he was making excess payment to the landlord for his needs. I would like to reproduce para 7 of the counterclaim as follows: "That, even after denial for the enhancement of premium of rent from the side of landlord, the tenant/applicant was gave a excess of amount to the landlord for his needs apart from each and every premium of rent towards the rented premises on the request of the landlord/respondent present."
Rajni Gupta Vs. S.S. Kumar Page no. 11 of 12 12
16. Admittedly there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Tenant by his own admission, in his written statement, had been enhancing rent which in the end was Rs. 25,000/ per month. Now he has sought return of the excess amount paid by him. It is not clear whether he was giving loan to the landlord or he was being benevolent and was giving charity of excess amount all these years. This is nothing but sheer abuse of process of the Court. Defendant/tenant has been lying through his teeth. There was no cause of action for filing of the counterclaim. It calls for rejection and is rejected.
17. Defendant/tenant had unnecessarily wasted time of the Court by filing frivolous counterclaim. I burden him with cost Rs. 11,000/ to be deposited with Rohini Courts Lawyers Welfare Association. Let decree sheet be drawn.
Announced in the open court on the 11th of September, 2015 (Pradeep Chaddah) District & Sessions Judge (North) Rohini Court, Delhi Rajni Gupta Vs. S.S. Kumar Page no. 12 of 12