Delhi High Court
Abhishek Chauhan vs Krishan Lal Dhooper on 3 December, 2014
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: December 03, 2014
+ RSA 358/2014 & C.M.No.19323/2014
ABHISHEK CHAUHAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Nischal Kr. Neeraj, Advocate
versus
KRISHAN LAL DHOOPER ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
The concurrent findings of both the courts below are that
respondent-plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession of the suit
property. Trial court vide order of 6th June, 2012 has suo moto exercised
powers under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC while noting that the rent of the
subject premises is more than `3,500/- per month and notice of the suit
for possession has been already received by defendant and so,
respondent-plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of the suit
premises.
The First Appellate Court has found trial court's order of 6th June,
2012 to be cryptic one and vide detailed order, the First Appellate Court
has maintained the decree for possession while holding that appellant-
defendant has admitted the existence of relationship of lessor and lessee
RSA NO. 358/2014 Page 1
in the suit property and appellant has also admitted that there was
termination of tenancy vide legal notice and such admissions are
unequivocal.
At the hearing, learned counsel for appellant contended that
without hearing the appellant, trial court had summarily decreed the suit
for possession by a cryptic order and the so-called admission is not a
clear admission and so, the judgment of the courts below deserve to be set
aside.
Apex Court in Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. Vs. M/S Jasbir
Singh Chadha (HUF) & anr. AIR 2010 SC 1890 has reiterated that
whether the admission made is clear or not, depends upon the facts of the
case and unless there is clear admission, power under Order 12 Rule 6
CPC cannot be invoked.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the judgments of the courts below
and the material on record, I find that there is an implied admission of
relationship of appellant being the lessee of respondent in the written
statement, as appellant-defendant in paragraph No.2 of the written
statement has called upon respondent-plaintiff to produce the original rent
agreements of the period from the year 2004 till 2011, which are said to
be in possession of respondent-plaintiff. In the written statement,
appellant-defendant asserts that he has already paid six months' rent in
advance while signing the rent agreement. Pertinently, the admitted rent
of the suit property was `4,500/- per month besides water and electricity
charges. The aspect of termination of lease is also not disputed in the
written statement by appellant- defendant.
Apex Court in Payal Vision Limited Vs. Radhika Choudhary
RSA NO. 358/2014 Page 2
(2012) 11 SCC 405 has reiterated that a decree for possession under
Order 12 Rule 6 CPC can be passed if the existence of jural relationship
of landlord and tenant between the parties is established and the
termination of tenancy is there. Affidavit of counsel who claims that trial
court had passed the order at his back is not forthcoming. The First
Appellate Court has noted that the presence of appellant's counsel is
marked by the trial court and so it is difficult to accept that trial court has
passed the order of 6th June, 2012 without hearing the parties. In any
case, full-fledged hearing has been afforded to appellant by the First
Appellate Court.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the courts below have
rightly decreed the suit for possession of the suit property while invoking
provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC. No substantial question of law
arises in this second appeal. The concurrent findings returned against the
appellant do not suffer from any perversity.
Consequentially, this appeal and applications are dismissed with no
order as to costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 03, 2014
r
RSA NO. 358/2014 Page 3
