Pankaj Madan vs B P Singh
2012 Latest Caselaw 5636 Del

*           THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           CM(M) 1380/2011
                                    Date of Decision: 18.09.2012
PANKAJ MADAN                                      ..... Petitioner
                           Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate..
                     Versus
B P SINGH                                           ..... Respondent
                           Through:     Mr. Anil Kumar Saxena, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assails order dated 03.10.2011 whereby application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC filed by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit, was dismissed.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for possession against the respondent/defendant in respect of suit premises, alleging the respondent to be in unauthorized possession thereof. It was his case that the respondent/ defendant was allowed to stay in the suit premises sometime in the year 2002 for a short period, but despite being requested to vacate the same, sometime in the middle of year 2002, he has refused to vacate, and as such, he is in unauthorized possession of the suit premises. It was alleged that the respondent/ defendant is a bare licencee, and the same having been revoked, he was liable to be evicted therefrom.

3. It was averred that the petitioner/plaintiff was entitled to decree of possession of the premises. Said application of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed by the Ld. ADJ, Karkardooma District Courts vide his impugned order dated 03.10.2011, which is under challenge in the instant petition.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

5. It is settled law that as per Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, the decree of the relief sought by the plaintiff, can only be passed when the defendant either in the pleadings or otherwise, orally or in writing, has admitted certain facts, based on which the judgment can be pronounced and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff.

6. It is also trite that the admission on the part of the defendant, entitling the plaintiff to seek decree, without trial, has to be clear, unconditional and unequivocal. In the instant case, there does not appear to be such kind of admission of facts, on the part of the respondent/defendant, which may entitle the petitioner to straight decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. There is no dispute that the respondent/defendant came to occupy the tenanted premises as a licencee of the petitioner. However, outrightly, it cannot be said to be a case of bare licence which could be revoked at will and pleasure of the licensor. On the other hand, the respondent/defendant has alleged to be having interest in the tenanted premises. His plea

in this regard is that he had rendered professional photography service to the petitioner and his brother for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only), and since the petitioner was not able to pay the same, he had agreed to sell the suit premises to him for Rs.5.00 lakh, and the said amount of Rs.3.00 lakh due from him, was adjustable from the sale consideration price of Rs.5.00 lakh. He alleged that the balance amount was payable by him to the petitioner/ plaintiff at the time of registration of documents in his favour. He alleged that all this negotiation took place in the presence of common friends, and it was in pursuance of the said negotiation that he is in occupation of the tenanted premises. He also alleged that there no revocation or termination of the licence by the petitioner, at any point of time.

7. In view of all this, it could not be said that there was the admission of the aforesaid nature on the part of the respondent/defendant. That being so, the cases of Vishwanath Sawant Vs. Gandabhai Kikabhai 1990 Law Suit (Bombay) 28 and Mawana Stand Vyapar Samiti & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, AIR 2004 Allahabad 394, relied upon by the petitioner/ plaintiff, are not applicable to the present case.

8. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

SEPTEMBER 18, 2012/awanish