Delhi High Court
Shikhar Jain vs Sunil Kumar Jain & Anr on 19 December, 2014
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 671/2014
Decided on 19th December, 2014
SHIKHAR JAIN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Saurabh, Adv.
versus
SUNIL KUMAR JAIN & ANR ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
A.K.PATHAK, J.(ORAL)
1. The appellant is husband of respondent No.2. Appellant had taken the
suit property i.e., property bearing no. 8555, 1st Floor, Katra Dhunimal,
Ganesh Das Building, Bhargarh, Roshan Ara Road, Delhi -110007 from the
respondent no.1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/- per month, vide Rent
Agreement dated 10.05.2011. Thereafter, appellant occupied the tenanted
premises along with his wife, that is, respondent no.2. Respondent no.1
filed a suit for possession, recovery of mesne profits and arrears of rent
against the appellant and respondent no.2 alleging therein that appellant was
irregular in making payment of rent. Ultimately, he stopped paying rent
from the month of February, 2012 onwards. Appellant and respondent no.2
did not vacate the suit property even after expiry of tenancy period on
09.04.2012. In terms of the Rent Agreement, appellant was liable to pay Rs.
1,000/- per day after 09.04.2012. Since premises was not vacated despite
termination of tenancy vide Legal Notice dated 02.05.2012 served on the
appellant through registered AD and speed post, hence, the suit.
2. In the written statement appellant did not deny the relationship of
landlord and tenant between him and respondent no.1. Rate of rent was also
not disputed. However, appellant denied that he defaulted in making
payment of rent. He alleged that respondent no.2 had instituted a complaint
under Protection of Woman From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before
Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi wherein on 2.3.2012, he was directed to pay
interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent no.2 subject to
the condition of removal of articles from the tenanted premises after
breaking open the lock in the presence of the Investigating Officer on
03.03.2012. On 03.03.2012 he removed all his goods and belongings from
the suit premises and handed over possession to respondent no.1. Appellant
alleged that he had paid rent till March, 2012. Accordingly, appellant was
not liable to pay the rent after 03.03.2012. Respondent no.2 and her family
members illegally occupied the tenanted premises. Thus, appellant was not
liable to pay monthly rent after 03.03.2012. Appellant alleged that he sent a
Legal Notice dated 30.05.2012 to respondent no.1 intimating this fact.
3. A perusal of order dated 15.01.2014 shows that respondent no.2 had
made a statement on that date that she would hand over the vacant
possession of the suit property to appellant on or before 28.02.2014.
Appellant‟s counsel made a statement that appellant had already vacated the
suit premises on 05.03.2012. However, fact remains that possession was
handed over by the respondent no.2 to respondent no.1 only on 28.02.2014,
pursuant to the said order. Respondent no.2, that is, wife of appellant
continued to occupy the suit property upto 28th February, 2014. As regards
mesne profits, issues were framed on 15.01.2014 and the matter was set for
trial.
4. During the trial, trial court vide decree dated 22.09.2014 under Order
12 Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 („the Code‟, for short) has
ordered for payment of admitted rent of Rs.6,000/- from 01.02.2012 to
28.02.2014. Aggrieved by the decree, appellant has preferred this appeal.
5. Trial Court has held that Landlord -Tenant relationship was not in
dispute; appellant had admitted that rent was not paid by him from the
month of March, 2012. There was a marital discord between the appellant
and respondent no.2, on account of which appellant had left the house.
However respondent no.2 continued to retain possession of the suit premises
and possession was handed over ultimately on 28.02.2014 by the respondent
no.2. The marriage of appellant and respondent no.2 was still subsisting as
no decree of divorce had been passed. A clear cut admission on these facts
can be inferred from the pleadings and other material on record. Thus,
appellant was liable to pay rent till the possession of the suit premises was
handed over by the wife of appellant to respondent no.1 on 28.02.2014.
Accordingly, decree has been passed for payment of arrears of rent w.e.f.
01.2.2012 till the date of the possession to respondent no.1,that is on
28.02.2014, on the admitted rent.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that no
decree on admission could have been passed by the trial court under Order
12 Rule 6 of the Code, without rendering findings on the issues framed and
that too only after affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.
Matter was set for trial and evidence of the respondent no.1 was in progress,
thus, no decree under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code was permissible under
law. I do not find any force in this contention of learned counsel. Order 12
Rule 6 of the Code reads as under:-
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 an 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.
7. A perusal of the quoted provision makes it clear that object of Order
12 Rule 6 of the Code is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment on
admission, at least to the extent of relief in respect whereof admission of the
fact has been made by the opposite party. Meaning thereby if a fact alleged
by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant in the pleadings or otherwise the
judgment on such admission can be passed by the court so as to ensure the
compliance of whole objective of incorporating the procedure as enshrined
under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code. The procedure of Order 12 Rule 6 of the
Code is to grant a quick relief to commercial litigants, whenever court finds
any legal admission of facts made in pleadings or otherwise, either orally or
in writing, the court will help the litigant to get quick relief. Merely because
issues have been framed in the case is no ground to reject an application
under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code, for passing judgment on such
admissions. In Parivar Seva Sansthan Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Veena Kalra and Ors.
AIR 2000 Delhi 349, a Division Bench of this Court has held that use of the
expression "any stage" in the said rule itself shows that the legislature's
intent is to give it widest possible meaning. Thus merely because issues are
framed cannot, by itself, deter the court to pass the judgment on admission
under Order 12 Rule 6.
8. In Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. vs. United Bank of India and Ors
2000 (7) SCC 120, the Supreme Court held that "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." In Charanjit
Lal Mehra and Ors. vs. Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan and Anr. AIR 2005 SC
2765, Supreme Court held that Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code is enacted for
the purpose to expedite the trials and 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.
9. Now coming back to the facts and circumstances of the present case,
appellant has admitted that he had taken the suit premises on a monthly rent
of Rs. 6000/- from the respondent no.1 vide rent agreement dated
10.05.2011. It was also admitted that after taking the premises on rent, he
was living in the tenanted premises along with his wife i.e. respondent no.2.
The statement dated 15.01.2014 of respondent no.2, recorded by the court on
oath, clearly shows that possession of the suit property was handed over by
the respondent no.2 to respondent no.1 only on 28.02.2014. A clear
admission of fact can be culled out from the above fact is that physical
possession of the suit premises was not handed over to the respondent no.1
in the month of March 2012, as the same continued to remain with
respondent no.2. Merely because appellant allegedly had left the house on
03.03.2012, on account of marital discord with respondent no.2, will not
make any difference and will not affect the rights of respondent no.1 to
recover the rent from the tenant, that is, appellant. The suit premises was
not let out to respondent no.2. It was let out to appellant. Respondent no.2
was living with the appellant as his family member. There was no privity of
contract between the respondent no.2 and respondent no.1 since suit
property was let out to appellant by the respondent no.1 and not to
respondent no.2. It was for the appellant to deliver physical possession of
the suit property to respondent no.1 after vacating the same. Since
appellant‟s wife continued to occupy the same, it continued to remain in the
tenancy of appellant till his wife handed over the possession. Till
28.02.2014, appellant being tenant, is liable to pay the rent as the possession
of the suit property was handed over to respondent no.1 on that day.
Respondent no.1 being landlord and owner of the suit property cannot be
made to suffer on account of inter se disputes between the husband and wife.
Appellant had taken the premises on rent and it was his responsibility to pay
the rent till possession of the tenanted premises is surrendered by him or his
family members to respondent no.1.
10. In the written statement appellant has stated that he had paid the rent
till March, 2012. He has not stated in the written statement that rent was
paid by him even thereafter; meaning thereby an admission can be inferred
that rent remained unpaid during the period appellant‟s wife (respondent
no.2) continued to occupy the suit property. It is not the case that respondent
no.2 had paid the rent to respondent no.1 for and on behalf of appellant. As
regards month of March, 2012 is concerned, appellant did not place any rent
receipt on record. Accordingly, trial court has rightly passed a decree of
arrears of rent on the admitted rent of Rs.6,000/- per month with effect from
01.02.2012 till 28.02.2014, when the possession of suit property was handed
over to respondent no.1.
11. For the aforesaid reasons appeal is dismissed.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
DECEMBER 19, 2014
gb
