O 12 R 6
O 12 R 6
DISTRICTJUDGE:
DELHI.
SuitNo.74/08
Col.A.S.Butalia&Others
Versus
M/sSuperiorFilmsPvt.Ltd.
ORDER:
applicationU/O12Rule6CPCmovedonbehalfof
plaintiffs.
Succinctlystated,factsofthecasearethata
wasfurtherclaimedthattheplaintiffshadfailed
todisclosethefactthatthedefendanthadalready
expressed its intention to renew the lease for a
further period of four years. The said intention
wasclaimedtohavebeenexpressedinDecember,
2007. On basis thereof, it was claimed that the
leasedeedhadbeenrenewedforafurtherperiod
of four years w.e.f. February, 2008 and the
defendant was legally entitled to retain
possession. It was further claimed that the
defendant had sent a letter dated 6.2.08 to the
plaintiffreiteratingthesaidfactbuttheplaintiff
deliberately not mentioned the said fact in the
plaint.
Inthepresentapplicationunderdisposal,it
wasclaimedonbehalfofplaintiffsthatdefendant
hadadmittedexecutionofleasedeedwhichwasto
expireon31.1.08andhadalsoadmittedthatrent
4
wasRs.15,000/PMwhichhadbeenincreasedto
Rs.18,000/ PM. It was claimed that as tenancy
hadexpiredbyeffluxoftimeandtheleasehadnot
beenrenewed,asperadmissionofthedefendant,
plaintiff was entitled to decree of possession. It
wasclaimed that the defencesought to be made
out by the defendant was evasive, vague and
frivolous.
submittedbyLd.Counselforplaintiffsthatasper
termsofthelease agreementthedefendantwas
toinformtheplaintiffaboutitsintentiontoextend
5
termsofOrder12Rule6CPCwasprayed.During
courseofhisargumentsLd. Counselforplaintiff
also placed reliance on some judicial
pronouncements in respect of scope and
applicationofOrder12Rule6CPC.
byLd.Counselfordefendantthatasperthelease
deed, there was no requirement of any written
intimation being given to the plaintiff qua
intention of the defendant to extend the lease
deed. Ld. Counsel submitted that a plausible
defence hadbeenraised bythedefendant inthe
written statement and also by way of its letter
dated 6.2.08 which had earlier been sent to the
plaintiffandforthis,thematterwasrequiredto
proceed on trial. It was submitted that as the
defendanthadraisedatriableissueandcouldbe
calleduponto proveitsdefenceduringcourse of
7
Ihavegivenmythoughtfulconsiderationto
10
applicabilityofprovisionsofOrder12Rule6CPC
admissionmustbeclear,unequivocalandpositive.
11
12
agreement,theleasewasinitiallyforaperiodof
fiveyearscommencingfrom1.2.03to31.1.08.The
lease however could be extended for a further
period of one term of four years for which the
lessee(presentdefendant)wasrequiredtoinform
thelessor(plaintiff)onemonthinadvancebefore
expiry of period of the earlier lease expressing
intentionforrenewal.Abarereadingofthelease
agreement shows that the defendant could
9
13
14
15
Itwasobservedin BaljitKaurVs.United
InsuranceCompanyLtd.[70(1997)DLTPage
742] thatprovisionsofOrder12Rule6CPCare
notintendedtobeputintooperationwherethere
areseriousquestionsoflawandfactinvolved.In
thecasebeforethiscourt,ithasbeenclaimedon
behalfofdefendantthatithadorallyinformedthe
plaintiffaboutitsintentiontoextendthelease.As
already stated, the lease agreement did not
provide for any written intimation to be sent by
defendant to the plaintiff in this regard. The
defendant, in opinion of this court has raised a
triable issue and would be required to prove its
claim during course of trial by leading legally
12
16
Itwouldalsonotbeoutofplacetomention
behalfofothercoplaintiffs. Atthisstageofthe
proceedings,thiscourtrefrainsitselffrommaking
anyobservationonmeritsregardingthesaidplea
beingtakenonbehalfofthedefendant.
17
proceededwithandthesuitshouldbetriedfora
return of findings on merits. Accordingly, the
applicationU/O12Rule6CPCfiled onbehalfof
plaintiffsisdismissed.
Announcedinopencourt(M.R.SETHI)
on392008ADDL.DISTRICTJUDGE:
DELHI.
15