Delhi High Court
A C Jose vs Urmila Vikramjit & Anr on 25 May, 2016
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA 108/2016
Date of Decision: 25.05.2016
A C JOSE ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Shakeel Ahmed, Adv.
versus
URMILA VIKRAMJIT & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Akshay Makhija, Mr. Vikas
Bhadauria, Ms. Mahima Bahl &
Mr. Siddharth Thakur, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
CM Appln. 14588/2016
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
RSA 108/2016
1. The respondents had filed Suit No.340/2014 for possession and
recovery of arrears of license fee along with mesne profits/damages
with respect to the let out suit property against the appellant/defendant
with the assertion that the license of the appellant/defendant to stay in
one room set in the suit property had been terminated vide legal notice
dated 01.09.2014 but the suit property had not been vacated. The
aforesaid suit was contested by the appellant/defendant on the grounds
that he had been paying the monthly rental of the property regularly
without any default; the respondent/plaintiff No.1 is not the owner of
the property and the appellant/defendant was not having any privity of
contract with her. The appellant/defendant has also challenged
ownership and title of the respondent/plaintiffs by raising doubts about
the authenticity of the conveyance deed dated 22.10.1999 executed in
favour of respondent/plaintiff No.1.
2. The suit property is one room set with an attached bathroom on
the ground floor of house bearing No.72, Todar Mal Road, Bengali
Market, New Delhi.
3. Respondent No.1 is the wife of respondent No.2.
4. The appellant/defendant was permitted to use one room set in
the aforesaid house on a monthly rental of Rs.12,000/- which was
enhanced to Rs.16,000/-. The rental was collected by respondent No.2
under the authorization of respondent No.1. In the written statement,
the appellant/defendant admitted of residing in the suit property for the
last ten years on the basis of an oral agreement between respondent
No.2 and him. Considering the old tenancy of the appellant/defendant,
it was claimed by him that he was allowed to remain in the suit
property for another two years by the respondent/plaintiff No.2. It
was further asserted by the appellant/defendant that the
respondent/plaintiffs are not residing in the suit property; rather they
stay in New Friends Colony and do not have any bona fide
requirement of the suit property.
5. Considering the aforesaid stand of the appellant/defendant in
the written statement, the suit was decreed in terms of Order XII Rule
6 CPC and the appellant/defendant was directed to handover peaceful
and vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent/plaintiff
within a period of three months from the date of the order and in the
meanwhile the appellants/defendant was injuncted from transferring or
creating any third party interest in the suit property.
6. With respect to the mesne profits claimed by the
respondent/plaintiff, the parties were directed to lead their respective
evidence.
7. Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC 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 any 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 upon in accordance with the
judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment
was pronounced.
8. What is required for rendering a decision in terms of Order XII
Rule 6 CPC is ascertainment of a clear, unequivocal and unambiguous
admission of the defendant.
9. In a suit for possession, if the relationship of landlord and tenant
is admitted and if such tenancy has been determined, no other
evidence would be required for the court to decree the suit except for
the ascertainment of the fact that there has been a valid notice
regarding the termination of the tenancy and the rental of premises in
question being more than Rs.3500/-, for not attracting the bar of Delhi
Rent Control Act.
10. In the present case, there is a clear and unambiguous pleading in
the plaint whereby it has been stated that by virtue of an oral
agreement, the appellant/defendant was occupying one room on the
ground floor for a monthly license fee of Rs.12,000/- in the beginning
which was enhanced to Rs.16,000/-. In the written statement of the
appellant/defendant, there is an admission of the fact that the rental of
the suit property was being paid but to respondent/plaintiff No.2 and
not respondent/plaintiff No.1.
11. The appellant/defendant and the respondents/plaintiffs do not
dispute the factum of absence of any written rent agreement between
them but according to the pleading as well as the written statement,
monthly rental was being paid by the appellant/defendant to the
respondents/plaintiffs. Thus the jural relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties stand established by admission.
12. That respondent/plaintiff No.2 was authorized by respondent/
plaintiff No.1 to collect the rent on her behalf from the
appellant/defendant, raises down the curtain over the dispute put up by
the appellant/defendant that there is no privity of relationship between
him and respondent No.2.
13. In the light of the judgment in Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. Vs.
Santokh Singh (2008) 2 SCC 728, namely, "filing of an eviction suit,
is itself a notice to quit", there is no doubt about the defendant having
been noticed regarding the termination of the tenancy.
14. From the admission of appellant/defendant regarding payment
of rental @12,000/- per month which was enhanced to Rs.16,000/- per
month, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the case is
affirmed.
15. Considering the aforesaid aspects, the Trial Court had decreed
the suit under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
16. The First Appellate Court has concurred with the findings of the
Trial Court on facts and law and has dismissed the appeal of the
appellant/defendant and has awarded cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to
the respondents/plaintiffs.
17. This court does not find any fault with the concurrent judgments
of the courts below.
18. No substantial question of law has been raised.
19. The second appeal is dismissed.
CM Appln. 14587/2016
1. In view of the petition having been dismissed, the application
has become infructuous.
2. The application is disposed of accordingly.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
MAY 25, 2016/ns
