Cotton Corporation Of India ... vs N.S.Katoch And Another
2010 Latest Caselaw 3185 Del

50.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Judgment dated on: 09.07.2010

+     RFA 342/2010

COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD               ..... Appellant
             Through : Mr. Rohit Kumar Yadav, Adv.

                  versus

NS KATOCH & ANR                                       ..... Respondent
              Through :       Mr. C.M. Oberoi, Mr. Pratap Venugopal
                              and Ms. Surekha Raman, Advs.

      CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI


         1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
            see the judgment?                             YES
         2. To be referred to Reporter or not?            YES
         3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES

G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

1. With the consent of the parties, present appeal is taken up for

final hearing and disposal.

2. Learned counsel for the parties submit that it is not necessary to

call for the trial court record as the pleadings and documents,

sought to be relied upon, are already on record.

3. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree

passed by learned Additional District Judge dated 24.02.2010

decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for possession on an application

filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil

Procedure Code, 1908.

4. The facts in brief being that the respondents N S Katoch and

Karuneshwar Katoch, in the present appeal, are the owner of the

property bearing Flat no.604, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Gandhi

Marg, New Delhi, hereinafter as tenanted premises. The tenanted

premises were let out to The Cotton Corporation India Ltd.,

(hereinafter referred to as "the appellant"), by Smt. Maya Katoch

vide a registered lease deed dated 31.01.1974 for a period of

three years commencing w.e.f. 12.06.1973. As per the terms of

lease deed, in case lessee (appellant herein) was desirous of

renewing the lease for a further term of two years, prior intimation

on the part of lessee via notice in writing was required for the

same, at least three months before the expiry of the lease. The

lease deed expired on 11.06.1976 to which no renewal was sought

and the appellant continued as a tenant holding over month to

month. This lease continued uptill the period it was terminated by

a notice issued by the respondents herein dated 16.04.2009. Last

paid rent being Rs. 16,897/- per month, paid by the appellant.

5. On 16.04.2009, a legal notice to quit was served upon the

appellant by the respondent. The appellant was, inter alia, called

upon to vacate the tenanted premises and deliver the possession

thereof to which the appellant replied on 08.05.2009. As per the

respondent, after service of notice of termination of tenancy,

landlords refused to accept any amount towards rent. Although

the appellant herein continued to send cheques towards rent

which were not encashed by the respondents herein. On

05.10.2009, a civil suit no. 343/2009 was filed by the respondent

before the trial court for recovery of possession, arrears of rent

and mesne profits/damages. The respondents filed an application

under Order XII rule 6 Civil Procedure Code seeking a decree on

the basis of the admissions made by the defendant in its written

statement. The learned trial Court passed a decree on the basis of

admissions made by the appellant herein, holding that nothing

survives in the defence of the tenant against a decree for

possession.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the

judgment and decree on the ground that the impugned judgment

and decree is arbitrary and the trial court failed to consider the

provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC in the right prospective.

7. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the trial court has

failed to consider that the admission must be unequivocal and

unambiguous.

8. It is contended that the trial court has failed to appreciate that the

issues raised by the appellants were contentious in nature which

could only be adjudicated upon after proper trial. It is further

contended that according to the terms and conditions of the lease,

the lease was to be extended for a further period of three years

after its expiry simply by enhancing the rent by 15%. It is also

contended that the tenancy could not have been terminated by

the respondents and the same continues from month to month.

9. Mr. C.M. Oberoi, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that

the law with regard to the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC has

been a subject matter of various decisions. Counsel further

submits that it is a well-settled that the object of Order 12 Rule 6

CPC is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment at least to

extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the

defendant, the plaintiff would be entitled to.

10. Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on Uttam Singh

Dugal & Co Ltd V Union Bank of India, reported at AIR 2000

SC 2740, wherein the Supreme Court in Para 12 has observed as

under; "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." Counsel for the

respondents further submits that the receipt and service of a

notice as per the provisions of the section 106 of the Transfer of

the Property Act has not been disputed; in fact the appellant has

replied to the legal notice. Counsel submits that it is also not

disputed that tenancy was on a month to month basis and the

rent being paid was Rs.16,897/-. Counsel also submits that the

appellant has admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant, the

service of the legal notice terminating the tenancy, the rate of

rent last paid and, thus, on the basis of these admissions the trial

court has rightly passed the decree. It is further contended that

there is no infirmity in the judgment and decree which has been

passed by the learned Additional District Judge.

11. Counsel for the respondents relies upon National Textile

Corporation Limited & Anr. Vs. Ashval Vadera, reported at

2010 IV AD (Delh) 705; Rama Ghei Vs. U.P. State Handloom

Corporation, reported at 91(2001) DLT 386; Deluxe Stores vs.

Allahabad Bank (Delhi High Court) decided on 18.4.2006; Pooja

Aggarwal Vs. Sakata Inx. (India) Ltd., decided on 2.9.2008;

Gulab Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co.

Ltd., reported at 164 (2009) DLT 43; Jindal Dychem Industries

Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pahwa International Pvt. Ltd., decided on

21.8.2009; and ITDC Ltd. Vs. M/s Chander Pal Sood & Son,

reported as 84 (2000) DLT 337 (DB) in support of his submission.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has

made the following admission in the written statement:

(a) That the plaintiffs (respondents herein) are the

owners/landlords of the tenanted premises let out to the

defendant.

(b) The rate of rent last paid before the issuance of notice of

termination dated 16.4.2009 was Rs.16,897/- per month.

(c) Legal notice dated 16.4.2009 terminating the month-to-

month tenancy was received by the defendant on

22.4.2009.

(d) No lease deed was executed in favour of the defendant

(appellant herein) after the expiry of the lease deed dated

31.1.1974, which expired on 16.4.1976.

13. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the

clear unambiguous and equivocal admissions the trial court has

rightly decreed the suit in favour of the landlord.

14. I have heard counsel for the parties and given my thoughtful

consideration to the matter. Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil

Procedure 1908 reads as under:

"XII (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."

15. It was observed in the case of Rajiv Sharma and Another Vs.

Rajiv Gupta, reported at (2004) 72 DRJ 540, that the purpose of

Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is to enable the party to obtain speedy

justice to the extent of relevant admission, which according to the

admission, if the other party is entitled for. Admission on which

judgment can be claimed must be clear and unequivocal. In the

case of Ms. Rohini V R.B.Singh, reported at 155 (2008) DLT 440

it has been held as under; "it is trite to say that in order to obtain

judgment on admission, the admissions must be clear and

unequivocal. In the matter of landlord and tenant there are only

three aspects which are required to be examined - (i) Relationship

of landlord and tenant; (ii) expiry of tenancy by a flux of time or

determination of valid notice to quit; and (iii) the rent of the

premises being more than Rs.3500/-, per month, in view of the

Act".

16. Applying the settled principle of law to the facts of this case and

on reading of the written statement filed by the defendant

appellant herein would show that the appellant has admitted that

the respondents herein are the owners/landlords of the tenanted

premises let out to the appellant; the rate of rent last paid before

issuance of notice of termination dated 16.4.2009 was Rs.16,897/-

per month; legal notice dated 16.4.2009 terminating the

month-to-month tenancy was received by the appellant on

22.4.2009; and no lease deed was executed in favour of the

appellant after the expiry of the lease deed dated 31.1.1974,

which expired on 16.4.1976. There is no force in the submission of

counsel for the appellant that tenancy was orally extended from

time to time for a period of three years with 15 percent increase

in rent. In the absence of any registered lease deed the tenancy

was extended from month to month. The notice of termination

dated 16.4.2009 was served on the appellant herein. As per notice

the tenancy was to expire on 11.5.2009. The notice was duly

served and received on 22.4.2009, which is evident from the fact

that the same was acknowledged and replied to on 8.5.2009, copy

of which has been placed on record. This would show that the

second important ingredient also stands duly met.

17. Reading the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC would show that a

decree can be passed either on admission of facts or on question

of law. Almost similar question arose for consideration in I.T.D.C.

Ltd. vs M/s Chander Pal Sood & Sons,: 84(2000)DLT337

before the Division Bench of this Court. In face of the admission as

to the relationship of landlord and tenant, the service of notice

terminating the tenancy, the tenant was required to vacate the

premises by the end of the tenancy and the fact that the tenancy

was month to month basis the court came to the conclusion that

nothing survives in the defence of the tenant and a decree of

possession could be passed on admitted facts. The other pleas

raised by the defendants in the written statement were held to be

of no relevance.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any

infirmity in the legal notice nor has receipt thereof been denied.

The appellant has also admitted that the last paid rent was

Rs.16,897/- which would show that the rent was far and in excess

of Rs.3500/-. The plea raised by the appellant that the tenancy

stands extended because of enhancement of rent by 15 % has

been accepted by the respondents has no force in view of the fact

that mere acceptance of rent does not amount to waiver and

more so in the present case despite the rent having been sent the

respondents did not accept the same. Having regard to the facts

of this case and the settled position of law and taking into

consideration that the relationship of landlord and tenant is

admitted; a valid legal notice was issued terminating the tenancy

which was duly received by the appellant and replied to; and the

rate of rent being more than Rs.3500/-, I do not find infirmity in

the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court.

Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed.

CM NO.9780/2010 (STAY).

19. Dismissed in view of the orders passed in the appeal.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

July 09, 2010 'msr'