Ghanshyam Dass Soni & Anr. vs M/S. Sundri Apparels ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 2674 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+       IA No. 1004/2011 in CS (OS) 938/2010


GHANSHYAM DASS SONI & ANR.                 ..... Plaintiff
               Through Mr. A.B. Dial, Sr. Adv. with
                        Ms. Ananya Datta Majumdar,
                        Advs.

                      versus


M/S SUNDRI APPARELS(INDIA) PVT LTD        ..... Defendant
                 Through Mr. R.L. Kohli, Adv.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR


                      ORDER

% 24.04.2012

1. By this application filed under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section

151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the plaintiffs seek a decree

for recovery of possession of the suit premises bearing number

15A/53, 15A/54 (ground floor), W.E.A., Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh,

New Delhi against the defendant based on the admissions in the

written statement.

2. Before proceeding to decide this application, it would be

appropriate to give a gist of the facts of the present case. The

plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession and recovery of

arrears of rent and damages and mesne profits. Plaintiffs have

claimed themselves to be the owners of the shop bearing number

15A/53, 15A/54 (ground floor), W.E.A., Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh,

New Delhi and the said subject property was leased out by the

plaintiff in favour of the defendant for a period of nine years w.e.f

1.7.2004 vide lease deed dated 26.7.2004 duly registered vide

document number 5381 in Additional Book No.1, Volume No.11147 on

pages 108-115 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar III. It is the case of

the plaintiff that initially the rent of the suit property was fixed at

Rs.3,31,000/- payable by the defendant in advance on or before

seventh day of each calendar month. It was also agreed between the

parties that the defendants were to pay monthly rent by way of two

separate cheques of Rs.1,65,000/- to each of the plaintiffs. It is also

the case of the plaintiffs that in terms of clause 4 of the Lease Deed,

the agreed rent was to be escalated by 12.5% w.e.f. 1.7.2007 and

further increase at the same rate w.e.f 1.7.2010. It is also the case of

the plaintiff that the defendant continued to pay increased rent

@Rs.1,86,187/- along with applicable service tax to each of the

plaintiffs but from April 2009 the defendant defaulted in making

payment of the rent. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that some of

the cheques issued by the defendant towards outstanding amount of

rent were dishonoured and vide registered letters dated 5.6.2009,

15.6.2009, 21.7.2009, 15.9.2009 & 5.10.2009 the plaintiffs called

upon the defendant to replace the said dishonoured cheques within a

period of 15 days. Receiving no response from the defendant, the

plaintiffs vide legal notice dated 21.12.2009 terminated the tenancy of

the defendant. The plaintiffs also sent various reminders and on the

failure of the defendant to make payment of outstanding rent amount,

the plaintiffs issued final legal notice dated 26.3.2010 through

registred AD post thereby calling upon the defendant to pay a sum of

Rs.12,10,055/- towards arrears of rent alongwith interest @ 18% per

annum as due and outstanding to plaintiff No.1 and sum of

Rs.16,14,213/- as outstanding in favour of plaintiff no. 2. Based on

these facts, the plaintiff has claimed a decree of possession, decree

for recovery of arrears of rent and damages etc from the defendant.

In the written statement filed by the defendant the main defence

raised is that they are entitled to claim benefit of Section 114 of the

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as they are prepared to make

payment of outstanding rent amount alongwith interest and cost of

the suit etc. In reply to the main paras of the plaint, the defendant has

admitted the lease and execution of the lease deed dated 26.7.2004.

The defendants have also admitted the rate of rent and subsequent

escalation in the rate of rent. In para 16 of the written statement the

defendant has taken a stand that there is no question of determination

of tenancy and payment of any damages by them in view of the fact

that they claimed relief against forfeiture in terms of Section 114 of

the Transfer of Property Act.

3. Addressing arguments on the present application, Mr. A.B.Dial

learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs are

straightway entitled to decree of possession in terms of Order 12 Rule

6 based on the clear, unequivocal and unambiguous admission of facts

made by the defendant in the written statement to the averments of

the plaintiff. Counsel further submits that for claiming decree of

possession the plaintiffs have to prove three essential components,

firstly relationship between the parties, that of landlord and tenant,

secondly non-payment of rent/damages by the defendant and thirdly

determination of the tenancy of the defendant. Counsel further

submits that there is a pre-admission of these facts by the defendant

in their written statement and they have admitted the factum of the

tenancy created between the parties in terms of the lease deed dated

26.7.2004. The counsel further submits that the defendant has also

admitted their outstanding liability towards arrears of rent and this

admission on the part of the defendant is apparent from the fact that

they have shown their willingness to pay the entire arrears of rent

along with interest and cost of suit. So far the aspect of termination of

tenancy is concerned, counsel for the plaintiffs has taken a stand that

tenancy of the defendant was duly terminated through various letters

more particularly through letter dated 24.02.10 and through notice

dated 26.5.11. Counsel also submits that the determination of tenancy

is also evident from the fact that the defendants have not traversed

para 15 & 16 of the plaint wherein the plaintiff took a categorical

stand with regard to the termination of the tenancy through letters

dated 24.2.10 and legal notice dated 26.3.10. Counsel further submits

that plaintiffs have placed on record various acknowledgment cards

and postal receipts to prima-facie show that the said letters and

notices were sent to the defendant through registered AD/speed post.

4. Opposing the present application, Mr. R.L. Kohli, Advocate

submits that no notice as per the requirement of clause 8 and clause

27 of the lease deed was sent by the plaintiff by registered AD post.

Counsel further submits that the requirement laid down in the said

two clauses is that the notice is not to be merely sent by the plaintiff

but the plaintiff has to ensure that the notice is duly served upon the

defendant. Counsel thus states that no notice has ever been sent and

served by the plaintiffs. Counsel also submits that the legal notice

dated 21st December, 2009 was never sent by the plaintiffs by

registered A.D. post as the plaintiffs have not placed on record any

registered A.D. card to prove service of the said notice upon the

defendant. Counsel also submits that the letters which were sent by

the plaintiffs only stipulate that the plaintiffs would be filing civil and

criminal action against the defendant for non-payment of the rent by

the defendant and even those letters have not even served by the

plaintiffs. Counsel further submits that name of the defendant M/s

Sundri Apparels (India) Pvt. Ltd. was changed to M/s Vasari India Pvt.

Ltd. from 20th July, 2009 and this fact was within the knowledge of

the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs had filed an amended memo of parties to

substitute the name of M/s Vasari India Pvt. Ltd. in place of M/s

Sundri Apparels (India) Pvt. Ltd. but yet no notice to the said new

company was sent by the plaintiffs. Counsel also submits that the said

new company i.e. M/s Vasari India Pvt. Ltd. had been sending the

cheques to the plaintiffs and the same were being accepted by them

and that some of the cheques have also been placed on record by the

plaintiff. Counsel further submits that no allegations of non-payment

of rent were leveled by the plaintiffs against M/s Vasari India Pvt. Ltd

and no notice was sent by the plaintiffs to M/s Vasari India Pvt. Ltd,

and thus no opportunity was given to the said new company to make

the payment of the outstanding rent. Counsel further submits that the

A.D. cards placed on record by the plaintiff nowhere show the

signature of Mr. Mahesh Chand, Director of the said company.

Counsel further submits that some of these A.D. cards bear the seals

of Reganpura address of M/s Sundri Apparels (India) Pvt. Ltd. Counsel

further submits that A.D. card dated 13th July, 2009 even does not

bear the correct address of M/s Sundri Apparels (India) Pvt. Ltd. as

phase 'V' is not mentioned and so far the A.D. card dated 22nd July,

2009 is concerned, the same does not bear the signature of the

addressee. Counsel further submits that the A.D. card dated

6.10.2009 bears the incorrect address of M/s Sundri Apparels (India)

Pvt. Ltd. as the same records the address of the said company at

Phase V6. Counsel further submits that the defendant in the written

statement has denied paras 11, 15 and has specifically denied para

16 of the plaint disputing the determination of the tenancy by the

plaintiffs or receiving any notice of the plaintiffs. Counsel for the

defendant fairly submits that defendant is not claiming the benefit of

Section 114 of the Transfer of the Property Act as the defendant could

not make the payment of the entire due rent.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have given my

thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by them. I have

also carefully gone through the documents placed on record by the

parties.

6. The admission made by the defendant in the written statement

thereby admitting the execution of the lease deed dated 26.7.04, their

liability of the payment of outstanding amount of rent to the plaintiff

and an evasive denial with regard to the termination of their tenancy

prompted the plaintiff to move the present application under Order 12

Rule 6 CPC to claim decree of possession based on the said

admissions. In reply to the said application of the plaintiff under

Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, the defendant has taken an additional defence

that plaintiffs have filed a suit against a wrong and non-existing name

and it is only when the defendant have pointed out impleadment of a

wrong defendant in the present case, the plaintiff then had

substituted name of M/s Vasari India Pvt.Ltd. by filing amended memo

of parties. In this reply again the defendant reiterated that they are

entitled to relief in terms of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property

Act.

7. Before dealing with the said rival contentions raised by the

counsel for the parties, it would be worthwhile to reproduce some of

the relevant paras of the plaint and reply given by the defendant to

the same in the written statement.

 Para 4 of the plaint : Accordingly the suit property was leased by the plaintiffs to the defendant for a period of 9 years commencing from 1.7.2004 and possession of the property was delivered to the defendant by the plaintiffs. A lease deed dated 26.7.2004 containing the terms and conditions of the lease was duly executed between the parties in this regard and it was registered as document No.5381 in Additional Book No.1, Volume No.11147 on pages 108-115 in the Office of the Sub Registrar-III, Delhi on 26.7.2004 Para 4 of the written statement:

That para no. 4 of the plaint is admitted that the lease is for a period of nine years w.e.f. 1.7.2004 and the lease deed was duly executed and registered with the Sub-Registrar on 26.7.2004.

 Para 5 of the plaint:

5. That the initial monthly rent of the suit property was fixed at Rs.3,31,000/- which was to be paid in advance on or before 7 th day of each English calendar month by the defendant to plaintiffs. The tenancy month was the English calendar month. The defendant was to pay by the monthly rent way of cheques a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- to each of the plaintiffs. The defendant paid the rent for the first three years of the tenancy by post dated cheques in advance. The defendant also paid a sum of Rs.6,62,000/- by way of two cheques of Rs.3,31,000/- to each of the plaintiffs by way of security which is refundable to the defendant at the time of vacation of the property after adjusting the dues, damages and claims of the plaintiff, if any.

Para 5 of the written statement :

That para no.5 of the plaint is admitted that the agreed rate of rent payable to the lessors i.e, the plaintiffs was Rs.3,31,000/- per month (Rupees three lakhs thirty one thousand only) i.e. each of the lessors was to be paid a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- after deducting the applicable TDS. It is submitted that the defendant had also paid a sum of Rs. 6,62,000/- by way of two cheques of Rs.3,31,000/- each to each of the plaintiffs by way of refundable security. It is submitted that out of the rent payable the defendant was entitled to deduct the applicable TDS.

 Para 9 of the plaint:

9..."The details of the defaulted amount of rent are as under :- Plaintiff No.1.

a) April to October 2009 : Rs. 19,177x7 = Rs. 134239.00

b) November 2009 to : Rs. 205,364x6= Rs.1232184.00 April 2010

Interest = Rs. 66461.00 Bank charges = Rs. 675.00 Total = Rs. 1433559.00

a) April to August 2009 : Rs. 19,177x5 = Rs. 95885.00

b) September 2009 to : Rs. 205,364x8=Rs. 1642912.00 April 2010 Interest =Rs. 104308.00 Bank charges=Rs. 675.00 Total =Rs. 1843780.00

The month wise details of the defaulted amount are given in schedules I and II to the plaint which may be read as part of the plaint. Para 9 of the written statement :

That para no. 9 of the plaint is not correctly stated and is hence controverted. It is submitted that the defendant is liable to pay the arrears of rent to the plaintiffs as per Annexure „A‟ and „B‟ annexed hereto which may be read as part of this para of the written statement. It is submitted that accordingly the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff no.1 only a sum of Rs. 11,03,249/- and Rs. 675/- claimed by the plaintiff totalling Rs. 11,03,924/- till 30.4.2010 and similarly the defendant is liable to pay to plaintiff no.2 a sum of Rs. 14,75,939/- as also Rs. 675/- claimed by plaintiff no.2 totalling Rs.14,76,614/- till 30.04.2010.

 Para 12 of the plaint:

12. That again by a registered letter/notice dated 24.2.2010 plaintiff no.1 wrote to the defendant that he had presented the cheques towards rent issued by the defendant in his favour for the months of November- December, 2009 and January-February 2010 for encashment through his bank and that all the cheques had been returned with the remarks "funds insufficient/exceeds arrangement". Accordingly plaintiff no.1 called upon the defendant to make payment of the due amount within 15 days failing which he would be constrained to initiate civil/criminal proceedings against the defendant at his cost, risk and responsibility. Para 12 of the written statement :

That para no. 12 of the plaint is admitted only to the extent that some of the cheques were returned as there was financial difficulty and in this respect the defendant had requested the plaintiffs to bear with for some time and not initiate any court proceedings but to no effect.

 Para 15 of the plaint:

15. When the defendant did not respond even to the aforesaid letters dated 24.2.2010, the plaintiffs issued a final legal notice dated 26.03.2010

through Regd. AD post to the defendant whereby the defendant was intimated that in view of the various defaults in the payment of the rent and the stipulation in the lease deed between the parties, the tenancy of the defendant stood terminated. Accordingly the defendant was called upon to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The defendant was also called upon to pay the entire arrears of rent including interest and bank charges then due to the plaintiffs. The defendant was thus called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 12,10,055/- towards arrears of rent including interest @ 18% p.a. and cheque return charges which are due to plaintiff no.1 and a sum of Rs.16,14,213/- towards arrears of rent including interest @ 18% p.a. and cheque return charges to plaintiff no.2 respectively, with costs of notice.

Para 15 of the written statement :

That para no. 15 of the plaint is not correctly stated and hence controverted. There was no real cause for the alleged determination of tenancy just for alleged non-payment of rent. It is submitted that the defendant is still prepared to pay the arrears and the rent till date with interest and cost and accordingly claims the relief against forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act.

 Para 16 of the plaint:

16. The plaintiffs submit that in view of the above facts and circumstances and the terms of the registered lease deed dated 26.07.2004, the tenancy of the defendant stood terminated on two consecutive defaults in the payment for rent of two consecutive months, which occurred for the first time which the default in payment of full amount of rent for the months of April-May, 2009. In any event, two consecutive defaults have occurred thereafter, with the passing of each month starting from June 2009 till April, 2010. Thereafter, it is submitted that the tenancy of the defendant as of today stands terminated and the defendant continues to occupy and use the suit property as an unauthorized occupant. Defendant is accordingly liable to pay damages for use and occupation @ Rs.20,000/- per day as stipulated in clause 23 of the lease deed for such use and occupation."

Para 16 of the written statement :

That para no. 16 of the plaint is denied. It is submitted that there is no question of determination of tenancy and payment of any damages and more so in view of the fact that the defendant has claimed the relief against forfeiture in terms of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act.

 PRAYER OF THE PLAINT:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to grant the following reliefs to the plaintiffs :-

a) A decree directing the defendant to handover to the plaintiffs vacant possession of the suit property admeasuring 2500 sq.feet in premises bearing no. 15A/53 & 15A/54, (Ground Floor), W.E.A., Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110 005 as per lease deed dated 26.7.2004;

b) A decree directing the defendant to pay to plaintiff no.1 a sum of Rs.14,33,559/- towards arrears of rent and/or damages for use and occupation etc. as detailed in Schedule-I to the plaint.

c) A decree directing the defendant to pay to plaintiff no.2 a sum of Rs.18,43,780/- towards arrears of rent and/or damages for use and occupation etc.as detailed in Schedule-II to the plaint.

d) A preliminary decree directing an inquiry as to the damages/mesne profits payable to the plaintiffs by the defendant from the institution of the suit until delivery of possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs, which the plaintiffs claim @ Rs.20000/- per day.

e) A decree directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiffs interest on the arrears of rent/damages found payable on the date of the suit from the date of the suit till payment @ 18% p.a. as per clause 24 of the lease deed; and

f) Award the entire costs of the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, and against the defendant; and

g) Any other decree/order(s) which this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.

PRAYER OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT:

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that suit of the plaintiffs may kindly be dismissed. It is prayed that as the defendant is prepared to pay the arrears of rent with interest and cost of the suit, the relief against forfeiture may be granted under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act.

On a bare reading of the aforesaid averments made by the plaintiffs in

the plaint and the averments made by the defendant in the

corresponding paras of the written statement, it can be easily

deciphered that the admissions on the part of the defendant to the

averments of the plaintiffs are clear and unequivocal. The only

defence raised by the defendant in the written statement is that they

will be entitled to the forfeiture clause as envisaged in Section 114 of

the Transfer of Property Act as they would be making the payment of

entire outstanding rent alongwith interest and cost. This opportunity

to pay the outstanding amount of rent alongwith cost was afforded to

the defendant vide order dated 2.2.2011 directing the defendant to

pay the entire arrears of rent as were due to the plaintiffs as on the

date of the filing of the suit by 31.3.2011 and on the payment of the

said amount, the defendant was held entitled to set up a plea under

Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. Indisputably, the

defendant did not come forward to pay the said amount in compliance

of the order dated 2.2.11 and therefore the defendant lost the

opportunity of raising their defence to defeat the right of the plaintiffs

to determine the lease by forfeiture of non-payment of rent. This fact

was also duly admitted by the counsel for the defendant that by not

complying with the said order the defendant can no more set up the

said defence.

8. Counsel for the defendant made a valiant attempt to argue that

before the termination of the tenancy of the defendant the plaintiffs

were not only required to send a notice but to serve the same as well

through registered AD post. The contention raised by counsel for the

defendant is that even if it is accepted that notice was sent by the

plaintiffs then the mere sending of the notice would not meet the

requirement of clause 8 of the Lease Deed which clearly postulates

not only the sending of the notice but service as well by Registered

AD post. Another contention raised by counsel for the defendant is

that the plaintiffs were well aware of the fact about the change of

company name from M/s. Sundri Apparels (India) Pvt.Ltd. to M/s.

Vasari India Pvt. Ltd. but no reminder letter/ legal notice was sent by

the plaintiffs to the said new company. Both the said arguments

raised by counsel for the defendant are found to be of no merit. For a

better appreciation of the said arguments raised by counsel for the

defendant, Clause 8 of the Lease Deed is reproduced as under:-

"8. That in case any cheque issued by the LESSEE for the

payment of rent is dishnoured by the Bankers of the LESSEE and

the same is not replaced by the LESSEE by a demand

draft/Banker's cheque within 15 days of the notice, it shall

constitute default in payment of rent and in case there be such two

consecutive defaults for the payment of rent for two consecutive

month, the tenancy shall stand determined and terminated. The

notice referred to shall be notices sent and served by registered AD

post."

It will be seen from the said clause that for two consecutive defaults

in the payment of rent, the tenancy of the defendant could be

terminated by giving the defendant 15 days notice. Last line of the

above clause also states that the notice referred to shall be notice

sent and served by Registered A/D post.

9. From the documents placed on record it is quite evident that the

plaintiffs have been writing letters to the defendant thereby calling

upon the defendant to make payment of arrears of rent failing which

the plaintiffs were to initiate civil as well as criminal proceedings

against the defendant. The plaintiff has also placed on record various

cheques issued by the defendant towards payment of rent but the

same were returned dishonoured. The plaintiffs have also placed on

record copy of the letter dated 24.2.2010 addressed to Mahesh Chand

Mohnani, Director of the defendant company giving 15 days

notice to the defendant to make payment of arrears of rent and on

failure to do so the tenancy of the defendant shall stand terminated.

The plaintiffs have further placed on record copy of the legal notice

dated 26.03.2010 and in the said legal notice the plaintiffs clearly

notified the said termination of the tenancy of the defendant on the

failure of the defendant to pay the outstanding amount of arrears of

rent. The plaintiffs have also placed on record original postal receipts

of speed post, original postal receipt of the legal notice dated

26.3.2010 and with the said postal receipts being placed on record,

presumption of service of the same arises in favour of the plaintiff

under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The admission of

the said termination of the tenancy in terms of clause 8 of the lease

deed can also be easily inferred from paras no.15,16 of the written

statement wherein the defendant has not controverted the factum of

determination of their tenancy as averred by the plaintiff in

corresponding paras 15 & 16 of the plaint. It is a settled legal position

that where denial is not specific or evasive then allegation made in

the plaint shall be deemed to have been admitted. This rule is known

as Doctrine of Non Traverse embodied in order VIII rule 5 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 and is applicable where the material

averment made in the plaint is not specifically denied by the

defendant in the written statement and as such an averment is taken

to be admitted. The plaintiffs in paras 15 & 16 of the plaint have made

specific allegation with regard to the termination of the tenancy with

the defendant while on the other hand defendant in reply have raised

a plea that there was no real cause for the alleged termination of the

tenancy by the plaintiffs. Whether the cause was real or unreal but

the defendant has not disputed the fact that their tenancy was

terminated by the plaintiffs. The termination of the tenancy was also

borne out from the fact that defendants have not denied their liability

to make payment of outstanding arrears of rent/ damages to the

plaintiff.

10. Order 12 rule 6 was brought on the statute book to facilitate

speedy justice. It was where there was no controversy about rival

claims, it would amount to admission and the judgment can be

rendered on that admission, whether in pleadings or otherwise, in

writing or orally. However the admissions must be clear, unequivocal,

and unambiguous. Though the provision is not mandatory in nature,

but the court has to consider the purpose of the provision while

exercising its discretion and in my considered view, this is case fit for

exercising this discretion. Here it would be relevant to refer to the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Uttam Singh Duggal vs.

United Bank Of India (2000)7SCC 120 where the scope of Order 12

rule 6 has been discussed 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.

13. The next contention canvassed is that the resolutions or minutes of meeting of the Board of Directors, resolution passed thereon and the letter sending the said resolution to the respondent bank cannot amount to a pleading or come within the scope of the Rule as such statements are not made in the course of the pleadings or otherwise. When a statement is made to a party and such statement is brought before the Court showing admission of liability by an application filed under Order XII Rule 6 and the other side has sufficient opportunity to explain the said admission and if such explanation is not accepted by the Court, we do not think the trial court is helpless in refusing to pass a decree. We have adverted to the basis of the claim and the manner in which the trial court has dealt with the same. When the trial judge states that the statement made in the proceedings of the Board of Directors meeting and the letter send as well as the pleadings when read together, leads to unambiguous and clear admission with only the extent to which the admission is made is in dispute. And the court had a duty to decide the same and grant a decree. We think this approach is unexceptionable."

Thus in the backdrop of the above legal position, in the facts of the

case at hand, this court finds that there is clear, unequivocal and

unambiguous admission on the part of the defendant and therefore

the plaintiff is entitled to judgment and decree in terms of Order 12

Rule 6. The present suit filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of

possession in respect of suit property is accordingly decreed in

favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

11. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

                                            KAILASH GAMBHIR, J

APRIL        24, 2012/G