Rakesh Basra vs Satsagar Gupta
2011 Latest Caselaw 6086 Del

*                HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

%                                        Judgment pronounced on: 13.12.2011

+            IA No. 13117/2011in CS (OS) No. 1936/2008


        RAKESH BASRA                              ..... Plaintiff
                  Through: Mr Mohit Chaudhary, Adv. with
                           Mr Dheeraj Gupta, Mr Aditya Das and
                           Ms Rashi Bansal, Advs.

                           Versus


        SATSAGAR GUPTA                                        ..... Defendant
                  Through: Nemo.

Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. By this order, I propose to decide the I.A. No.13117 of 2011 filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule read with Section 151 of CPC a decree of eviction to evict the defendant and anyone acting on his behalf for the property bearing No.48/2, Ground Floor, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi.

2. As per the facts mentioned in the plaint, property bearing No. 48/2, Ground Floor, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) was let out to the defendant on 28.01.2004 vide rent agreement dated 28.01.2004 w.e.f. 01.02.2004 for a period of 11 months for a monthly rent of Rs.13000/-.

3. It is stated by the plaintiff that after the expiry of 3 years since the tenancy was created, the plaintiff asked the defendant to increase the monthly rent to Rs.17000/- as the rental value of the suit property had

I.A. No. 13117/2011 in CS(OS) No. 1936/2008 Page No.1 of 6 also increased accordingly. But, the defendant, on the contrary, instead of increasing the rent, stopped payment of rent to the plaintiff since April 2007.

4. Therefore, the plaintiff sent a legal a legal notice to the defendant dated 17.05.2007 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to the defendant asking him to vacate the suit property. In reply to the said notice, the defendant alleged that the suit property was let out to him for residential cum commercial purpose and that the delay in payment of rent was also due to the fault of the plaintiff since he was delaying the renovation work of the entire building.

5. It is further stated by the plaintiff that on 18.03.2008 the defendant issued a cheque bearing No. 185150 amounting to Rs.13000/- in favour of the plaintiff towards part payment of outstanding rent but, the same was returned by the bank vide it cheque returning memo dated 25.03.2008 with the remark "Signature on Alteration Differs".

6. In the present application, it is stated by the plaintiff that the defendant has not made a specific denial to any of the allegations made in the plaint, consequently admitting the allegations made in the plaint. Further, it stated by the plaintiff that the defendant has categorically made the following admissions in the pleadings:-

(a) Existence of relationship of Landlord and Tenant.

(b) Receipt of legal notice dated17.05.2007.

 (c)     Reply dated 22.05.2007 to legal notice.
 (d)     Other relevant admissions in lieu of the fact that there is no
         specific denial in the Written Statement.

7. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the need for leading of evidence for the first issue farmed by this court does not arise and thus, a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant without waiting for determination of any other question between the

I.A. No. 13117/2011 in CS(OS) No. 1936/2008 Page No.2 of 6 parties.

8. The issues in the present case were framed on 14.09.2010 reads as under:-

"(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of eviction in respect of ground floor of the property bearing No.48/2, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi? OPP

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of `2.26 lacs towards arrears of rent from May, 2008 and further rent /damages @ `17,000/- per month till the date of eviction? OPP

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of a sum of `1 lac on account of outstanding amount of electricity and water dues from the defendant? OPP

(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of damages amounting to `15 lacs and `3 lacs as damages on account of unauthorized user of the terms? OPP

(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so at what rate and for what period. OPP

(6) Relief."

9. In the reply to the present application, the defendant has merely stated that the tenancy between the parties has not been terminated validly, therefore the instant suit itself not maintainable and that the defendant cannot conditionally terminate the tenancy only for the purpose of seeking higher rent. According to the defendant, the question that whether the plaintiff can charge the rent at a higher rate is a matter of adjudication.

10. In the present case, as per rent deed dated 28.01.2004, it was agreed between the parties that the period of the said premises is fixed from 01.02.2004. The tenant has taken the said premises for residential

I.A. No. 13117/2011 in CS(OS) No. 1936/2008 Page No.3 of 6 purpose and has taken the premises on rent at the rate of Rs.13000/- per month.

11. It is also admitted position in the rent deed that on non- payment of regular rent of the said premises, the tenant shall be liable for ejectment from the said premises and the tenant will pay the rent in advance.

12. The defendant has not denied the fact in his written statement that he was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises. The relationship, amount of rent and receipt of notice which is sent by the plaintiff under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are not denied by the defendant.

13. It is settled legal proposition that in a suit for the relief of possession, the plaintiff is only required to prove that the defendant was inducted in the property by him and he is entitled to receive back the possession. In the present case, the relationship of landlord and tenant is not denied by the defendant.

14. It is only devised now to somehow defeat and delay the eviction and possession of the premises to the landlady. In fact, Order XII Rule 6, C.P.C. is enacted for the purpose of and in order to expedite the trials if there is any admission on behalf of the defendants or an admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute; then, in such a case in order to expedite and dispose of the matter such admission can be acted upon. In the present case, looking at the terms of lease deed, there can be no two opinions. In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Uttam Singh Duggal & Co.Ltd. vs. United Bank of India & Ors.: (2000) 7 SCC 120. Their Lordships have held as follows:

I.A. No. 13117/2011 in CS(OS) No. 1936/2008 Page No.4 of 6 "In the Objects and Reasons set out while amending Rule 6 of Order 12 CPC 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." The Supreme Court should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment."

15. Therefore, in the present case, as appearing to us, there is a clear admission on behalf of the defendant that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenants, the rent is Rs.13000/-. As such on these admitted facts, there are no other options in the matter but to allow the present application.

16. In the case of M/s. Emirates Vs. DLF Universal Ltd.; 169 (2010) DLT 604, it was held that in the absence of a contractual period of tenancy, the defendant as per the law is to continue in possession of the premises but only as month to month tenant. The tenancy is terminable by the lessor on the service of notice. Admittedly, in the present case, notice was served upon the defendant by the plaintiff, the receipt of which is not disputed by the defendant.

17. Thus, I am of the view that the trial in the matter is not required as the parties are not at issue on any question of law or act to be determined further. The provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC are therefore applicable. The Court is empowered to pronounce the judgment under the said provision besides the provision of Order XV of the CPC.

18. Therefore, I allow the plaintiff's application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and a preliminary decree is passed in relation to vacation of defendant and delivery of possession of the suit premises.

19. The defendant is directed to vacate the ground floor of the

I.A. No. 13117/2011 in CS(OS) No. 1936/2008 Page No.5 of 6 suit premises i.e. 48/2 Ground Floor, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi within two months and handover the keys to the plaintiff. The defendant is also directed to file an affidavit of compliance, failing which the plaintiff would be entitled to take the necessary steps in accordance with law.

20. As far as other relief of recovery of rent and other claims are concerned, the proceedings would continue for the said purpose and a final decree be passed after the enquiry.

CS (OS) No. 1936/2008

21. List the matter before Joint Registrar on 27.02.2012.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

DECEMBER 13, 2011 jk

I.A. No. 13117/2011 in CS(OS) No. 1936/2008 Page No.6 of 6