Delhi High Court
Ravi Somani vs Sandeep Tayal on 17 July, 2015
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 2585/2014
Decided on 17th July, 2015
RAVI SOMANI ..... Plaintiff
Through :Mr. Rajesh Banati and Mr. Sunil
Verma, Advs.
versus
SANDEEP TAYAL ..... Defendant
Through : Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
A.K. PATHAK, J. (ORAL)
IA No. 10259/2015 (under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC filed by the plaintiff) in
CS(OS) No 2585/2014
1. Arguments heard. Record perused.
2. Plaintiff has filed this suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent
and mesne profit against the defendant. Written statement has been filed.
Admission/denial of the documents is also complete. At this stage, plaintiff
has filed this application under Order 12 Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (The „CPC‟ for short) for passing a judgment on admissions.
3. Relevant it would be to refer and rely upon the Order 12 Rule 6 of the
CPC, which reads as under:-
"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."
4. A perusal of aforesaid provision makes it clear that a judgment shall
follow, where unambiguous and unequivocal admissions of facts are made in
the pleadings or otherwise. In Deluxe Dentelles Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs.
Ishpinder Kochhar, 218 (2015) Delhi Law Times 645 (DB), it has been held,
thus, "the purpose of the Rule is self-evident; to curtail the agony of parties
and not subject them to the torture of a trial. The word „otherwise‟ after the
expression „made either in the pleading‟ as occurring in Sub-rule (1) of
Order 12 of Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be overlooked. To
put it pithily, the Rule is expansive and would warrant its application if an
admission is discernible, as long as it is unequivocal, unqualified and
unambiguous, in any writing of a party; be it a pleading, a letter, a
communication, an internal document such as a Statement of Account or a
Balance Sheet, etc. for which the decision of the Supreme Court reported as
III (2010) SLT 199-II (2010) CLT 1 (SC)-(2010) 4 SCC 753, Karam Kapahi
& Ors. Vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust & Anr. would be an authority
for the point noted."
5. In the plaint, plaintiff has categorically alleged that ground floor of
the property bearing no. 1/95 WHS, Timber Block, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-
110015 ("suit property", for short) was leased to defendant on a monthly
rent of `90,000/- with effect from 1st November, 2010 till 31st December,
2013 vide a Lease Agreement dated 1st November, 2010 exclusive of
electricity charges. During pendency of the lease period, defendant vacated
a portion of the suit property on 15th March, 2014 which is shown in yellow
colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint. The portion, which is in
occupation of the defendant, is shown in red colour in the site plan.
Defendant was irregular in making payment. A sum of `17,93,565/- was
due and outstanding towards rent. Defendant had also not issued TDS
certificate. Lease period expired on 31st December, 2013; however,
possession of the suit property was not handed over by the defendant. Vide
legal notice dated 18th June, 2014 plaintiff terminated the tenancy and called
upon the defendant to vacate the suit property but to no effect.
6. A perusal of written statement shows that the landlord-tenant
relationship has not been disputed. It is also not in dispute that rent fixed
was above `3500/-. Lease Agreement has been admitted by the defendant in
the admission/denial of the documents and has been exhibited as Ex. P-1.
The legal notice issued by the plaintiff has been admitted in the
admission/denial and same has been exhibited as Ex. P-2. Receipt of the
legal notice stands admitted.
7. In a suit for possession by a lessor against the lessee, plaintiff has to
establish that (a) there exists landlord-tenant relationship, (b) rent being
more than `3,500/- per month so as to exclude the applicability of Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 and (c) tenancy has expired by efflux of time or
stands determined by a valid notice to quit or the tenant has otherwise
forfeited the right under the lease agreement.
8. A Division Bench of this Court in Deluxe Dentelles Pvt. Ltd. (supra)
has held as under:-
"18. It is settled law that in Delhi, in a suit for
ejectment, only three issues arise for
consideration:
(a) Whether there exists a landlord-tenant
relationship between the parties?
(b) Whether the tenancy has expired by efflux
of time or stands determined by a valid notice to
quit or the tenant has otherwise forfeited the right
under the lease agreement? And
(c) Since Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
prohibits ejectment of a tenant paying rent up to
`3,500/- per month save and except by an order
passed by a Rent Controller on the grounds
specified under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958, whether the rent of the leased
premises is more than `3,500/- per month."
9. In this case, landlord-tenant relationship stands established since it
has not been disputed in the written statement. Indubitably, the Lease
Agreement is an unregistered document and cannot be read in evidence so as
to enforce its terms but it is settled position in law that it can be read for
collateral purposes, that is, for ascertaining the landlord-tenant relationship
between the parties and the rent. Above all, the landlord - tenant
relationship has not been disputed in the written statement. In absence of a
registered lease deed tenancy is taken on month to month basis and such a
tenancy can be terminated by issuing a notice under Section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act. Legal notice indeed has been served by the
plaintiff on the defendant which fact stands admitted by the defendant as
during the admission/denial of documents same has been exhibited as Ex.P2,
after the same was admitted by the defendant. That apart, service of notice
may not be relevant in this case since summons in suit along with copy of
the plaint and documents itself is sufficient compliance of Section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act.
10. In Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Ltd. vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF)
& Anr., MANU/DE/1277/2011, this Court has held that service of summons
along with the plaint itself tantamount to service of notice within the
meaning of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It would be
worth mentioning here that Special Leave Petition filed against Jeevan
Diesel (supra) has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
11. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff is entitled to a judgment on
admissions. Consequently, a decree of possession in respect of the suit
property shown in red colour in the site plan, is passed in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant.
12. Decree-sheet be drawn.
13. As regards recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits as claimed in
the plaint, suit shall proceed further.
CS(OS) 2585/2014
14. List on 29th October, 2015 for framing of issues. In the meanwhile,
parties to exchange proposed issues.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
JULY 17, 2015
rb
