Delhi High Court

Amitabh Verma vs Sneh Lata Malhotra on 24 December, 2014

Author: A. K. Pathak

$~20
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     RFA 210/2014

                                               Decided on 24th December, 2014

      AMITABH VERMA                                             ..... Appellant
                           Through : Mr. Rajat Aneja and Ms. Rashmi
                                     Verma, Advs.
                           versus
      SNEH LATA MALHOTRA                                        ..... Respondent
                           Through : Mr. K.K. Bhuchar, Adv.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

A.K.PATHAK, J. (Oral)

1. Appellant has assailed the decree of possession dated 31 st March,

2014 passed by the trial court under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 ("the Code", for short) in respect of the suit property, that

is, E-5, Ground Floor, Greater Kailash-II Enclave, New Delhi. As regards

other reliefs including mesne profits, suit is still pending.

2. Respondent alleged in the plaint that suit property was let out to

appellant vide a registered Lease Deed dated 26th February, 2009 on a

monthly rent of `14,000/-. Appellant stopped paying rent with effect from

April, 2009. As on the date of filing of the suit ` 1,26,000/- was due and

outstanding towards the rent. Accordingly, respondent terminated the

tenancy vide legal notice dated 19th August, 2009, sent to appellant through

speed-post; whereby appellant was called upon to handover possession of

suit property to respondent on 1st October, 2009 and also to clear the arrears

of rent. Since the possession was not handed over by the appellant to

respondent, hence, the suit.

3. In the written statement, it was not denied that suit property was let

out by the respondent to appellant. However, it was denied that respondent

had let out the ground floor of property no. E-5, Greater Kailash-II, New

Delhi to the appellant vide Lease Deed dated 26th February, 2009. The suit

property was not properly described in the plaint. It was alleged that Lease

Deed was a forged document. Appellant claimed that entire ground floor

was let out by the respondent on 31st January, 2009 vide an oral agreement.

Tenancy commenced from 1st February, 2009 and was for a period of three

years. However, it was not denied that rent of the tenanted premises was

`14,000/- per month, besides electricity and water charges. Appellant

denied that he did not pay rent from April, 2009 onwards. Appellant denied

the receipt of notice dated 19th August, 2009. Appellant claimed that

tenancy was not terminated by a legal and valid notice. Certain other pleas

were also taken but same are not relevant for the purpose of disposal of this

appeal, since in a suit for possession, plaintiff/landlord has to establish only

following three ingredients:-

"a) There exists landlord - tenant relationship between the parties;

               b)     Rent being more than ` 3,500/- per month
               so as to oust the applicability of Section 50 of the
               Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958;
               c)     Termination of tenancy under Section 106 of
               the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ("the Act", for
               short)."

4. In Payal Vision Limited vs. Radhika Choudhary (2012) 11 SCC 405,

Supreme Court has held thus: "in a suit for recovery of possession from a

tenant whose tenancy is not protected under the provisions of the Rent Control

Act, all that is required to be established by the plaintiff landlord is the

existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties

and the termination of the tenancy either by lapse of time or by notice served

by the landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. So long as

these two aspects are not in dispute the court can pass a decree in terms of

Order 12 Rule 6 CPC". In Jatinder Nath Gupta vs. STC of India

MANU/DE/1869/2012, a learned Single Judge of this court has held that

while dealing with an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, relating to a

suit for possession, three factors must be satisfied by the landlord: (i) the

landlord tenant relationship should not be disputed; (ii) the rate of rent

should be over `3,500/-; and (iii) the tenancy should have been validly

terminated. Similar is the view expressed in Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd.

vs. Pal Properties Pvt. and Ors., 2002 (62) DRJ 623, Punjab National Bank

vs. Virendra Prakash & Another 188 (2012) DLT 48 and Sky Land

International Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kavita P. Lalwani 191 (2012) DLT 594.

5. 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.

6. A perusal of the above 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. 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.

7. Now coming back to the facts of this case, it is not in dispute that

appellant is a tenant of respondent in the suit property. It is also not in

dispute that rent of the suit property is more than `3,500/- per month. As

regards plea of appellant that no legal and valid notice was issued since it

was dispatched on an incorrect address is of no consequence. Service of

summons along with the plaint itself amounts to notice under Section 106 of

the Act.

8. In Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. vs. Santokh Singh (HUF) 146 (2008)

DLT 217 (SC), Supreme Court held that service of notice under Section 106 of

the Act was not necessary as filing of eviction suit under the General Law itself

amounted to a notice to a tenant. In Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Ltd. vs.

Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) and Anr. 182 (2011) DLT 402, it has been held

thus :-

"(iv) Another reason for rejecting the argument that the tenancy would not be terminated by the legal notice Ex.PW1/3 is that the Respondents/Plaintiffs admittedly filed a copy of this notice along with the suit way back in the year 2007. Once the summons in the suit along with documents were served upon the Appellant/tenant, the Appellant/tenant would obviously have received such notice. Even if we take this date when the Appellant/tenant received a copy of the notice when served with the documents in the suit, once again, the period of 15 days has expired thereafter and keeping the legislative intendment of amended Section 106 in view, the Appellant therefore cannot argue that the tenancy is not terminated and he did not get a period of 15 days to vacate the premises. I am in view of this position consequently entitled to take notice of subsequent events under Order 7 Rule 7 CPC, and

taking notice of the subsequent events of the expiry of 15 days after receipt of a copy of the notice along with documents in the suit, I hold that the tenancy has been validly terminated, and as on date, the Appellant/tenant has no right to stay in the premises and consequently the decree for possession was rightly passed by the trial Court."

9. It may be noted that Special Leave Petition against the Jeevan Diesels

(supra) has already been dismissed by the Supreme Court. In view of the

above settled legal position, I do not find any force in the contention of

learned counsel for the appellant that notice of termination of tenancy was

not validly served on the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has

next contended that issues had already been framed in the suit and the matter

was at evidence stage, thus, no decree of possession could have been passed

by the trial court that too while disposing of Review application of the

appellant A perusal of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code makes it clear that

Court can exercise its jurisdiction under the said provision at any stage, thus,

merely because issues had been framed cannot, by itself, deter the Court to

pass a judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code. In Parivar