1

IN THE COURT OF MS.VEENA RANI :ADJ-06, WEST

DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

CNR No:DLTWT01-0000936-2022
Civil Suit No:146/2022

Smt. Indu Bala & Ors. .....Plaintiffs

Versus
Sh. Hemant Kumar .....Defendant
ORDER

1. This order shall dispose of the application under

Order 12 Rule 6 C.P.C, filed by the plaintiff for passing of
judgment on the admissions made by the defendant in the
written statement for the relief of possession of the suit
property. Briefly the facts for the disposal of this
application are as under:-

2. It is averred by the plaintiff that she has filed the

present suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent,
recovery of damages/mesne profits and mandatory
injunction against the defendant and present application
has been filed on the basis of categorical and unequivocal
admission of the defendant in her written statement in para
5(i) & (ii) of preliminary objections to the fact that the
defendant is living in the suit property/tenanted premises
no.E-396, Second Floor, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi-
110015 since 01-07-2019 and execution of rent agreement
dated 20-05-2020 and 18-06-2021 between the plaintiffs
and defendant.

Civil Suit No:146/2022, Smt. Indu Bala & Ors. Vs.Sh. Hemant Kumar
 2
3. It is stated that in para 7 of written statement the
defendant admitted that the plaintiff served legal notice dt.
24-11-2021 thereby terminating the tenancy of the
defendant and asked the defendant to hand over the actual
vacant physical possession of the tenanted premises.
Hence, the present application.

4. The defendant filed reply to the application of the

plaintiff and in their reply to the above application it is
stated by the defendants that there is no admission in the
written statement that to talk of unequivocal, unambiguous
and clear admission. It is stated that the plaintiff has filed
the present false suit against the defendant only to extract
money from them. It is denied by defendants that they in
their written statement admitted the case of the plaintiff
therefore the suit of the plaintiff to the extent of relief of
possession is liable to be decreed as alleged by the
plaintiff. It is stated by the defendant that defendant along
with his old age brother and sister is living in the aforesaid
tenanted premises since 01-07-2019 and regularly paying
the rent to the plaintiff through Sh. Umesh Chander i.e.
brother of the plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff
extended the lease period of 11 months w.e.f. 01-07-2019
to 31-05-2020 and further 11 months from 01-06-2020 to
30-04-2021 and thereafter again extended the lease period
for 11 months i.e. 01-05-2021 to 31-03-2022 vide
agreement dt. 18-06-2021. It is submitted that the time of
taking of premises on rent for the first time, it was agreed
between the plaintiffs and defendant that the tenure of
rented premises should of at least 7 years as brother of the
defendant is senior citizen of the age of 81 years.
Civil Suit No:146/2022, Smt. Indu Bala & Ors. Vs.Sh. Hemant Kumar
 3
5. It is further submitted by the defendant that the
plaintiff and his brother Sh. Umesh chander took financial
help of Rs.5 lacs in cash from the defendant without any
interest for 6 months but they failed to return the same. It
is stated that defendant has paid up to date rent to the
plaintiff and there is no arrears of rent up to November,
2011. It is stated that defendant when demanded back his
money of Rs.5 lacs the plaintiff started harassing the
defendants in order to usurp the money of the defendant.

6. It is denied by the defendant that they have admitted

the existence of lessor-landlord and tenant/lessee
relationship, and monthly rent is above Rs.3500/- or that
the lease was terminated vide legal notice dt. 24-11-2021
as well as by efflux of time.

7. I have heard the submission of ld. Counsel for the

parties and perused the file.

8. By way of the application under Order XII Rule 6

CPC, the applicant-plaintive have sought passing of
the :decree of possession of the premises.

9. Order 12 Rule 6 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 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.

Civil Suit No:146/2022, Smt. Indu Bala & Ors. Vs.Sh. Hemant Kumar
 4
2. Whenever a judgment is pronounced under subrule (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. Perusal of order 12 rule 6 makes it clear that the
emphasis is on admissions of relevant facts.

10. Order XII Rule 6 CPC deals with the situation where
the defendant admits the entire case of the plaintiff.
However, if the averments made in the written statement
gives rise to the trivial issues, the judgment on admission
under Order XII Rule 6 CPC cannot be passed. Unless the
admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional, the
discretion of the Court should not be exercised to deny the
valuable right of a defendant to contest the claim. In short
provision applies only when there is a clear “admission”
which can be acted upon. (See also Uttam Singh Duggal &
Co. Ltd. vs. United Bank of India [2000 (7) SCC 120],
Karam Kapahi vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust
[2010 (4) SCC 753] and Jeevan Diesels and Electricals
Ltd. vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha [2010 (6) SCC 601].

11. In case R.K. Markan vs. Rajiv Kumar Markan, 2003

AIHC 632 (633) Delhi, it was observed as under :- “For
passing a decree on the basis of admission of the
defendants in the pleadings, law is well settled that the
admission has to be unequivocal and unqualified and the
admission in the written statement should also be taken as
a whole and not in part....”

12. In Bhim Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors 2000 (VI)
AD (Delhi) 356, it was observed by Delhi High Court that

Civil Suit No:146/2022, Smt. Indu Bala & Ors. Vs.Sh. Hemant Kumar
 5
the provisions of order 12 R 6 CPC confers almost
sweeping powers on the Court to render a speedy judgment
in the suit to save the parties from going through the
rigmarole of trial. The only prerequisite for this is that
there must be admissions of facts arising in the suit, be that
in the pleadings or otherwise or orally or in writing, such
admission of fact must be clear and unequivocal,
unconditional and unambiguous and may relate to the
whole claim or part of it. These need not be made
expressly or specifically and could be constructive
admissions also. Whether or not such admissions arose in
the suit would depend on the facts and circumstances of
the case. If it involves disputes facts, claims and
counterclaims requiring evidence of the parties for
determination of issues or where defence of the party
touched the root of the matter a judgment could not be
passed under order 12 R 6 CPC dispensing with Suit no.
444/14 Sachin Kumar Gupta Vs. Raj kumari 4/9 the trial
because the valuable right of going to trial could not be
taken away from the party unless the claim was admitted.

13. In Uttam Singh Duggal Vs. Union of India AIR

2000 SC 2740 Hon'ble Supreme Court said "Where a
claim is admitted, the Court has jurisdiction to enter a
judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted
claim. 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

Civil Suit No:146/2022, Smt. Indu Bala & Ors. Vs.Sh. Hemant Kumar
 6
obtain a speedy judgment. Where the 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".

14. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in “SHRI

SOURABH AGARWAL VERSUS SH. MEGH RAJ
MANSHARAMANI {RSA No.179/2013 decided on
09.01.2014} has held:

“2. In Delhi, in order to maintain the suit for possession in a

civil court against the tenant, it is necessary that the following
facts must exist:-

(i) There is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the

parties;

(ii) The rate of rent of the premises is more than Rs.3,500/- per
month; and

(iii) The tenancy of the tenant has either expired by efflux of time
or stands duly terminated by a notice under Section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882.”

15. In the present case, there is no dispute as to the

relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties
and also that the rate of rent of the premises is more than
Rs.3,500/- per month. Both these aspects stand admitted in
the present case. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Limited
Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) and Anr. (2010) 6 SCC
601 it has been held that admissions must be clear
Civil Suit No:146/2022, Smt. Indu Bala & Ors. Vs.Sh. Hemant Kumar
 7
and unambiguous before the same are relied upon for the
purpose of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

16. In regard to S.106 Transfer of Property Act, 1882,

reference may be made to the judgment of the “M/s.
Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Limited Vs. Jasbir Singh
Chadha (HUF) and Anr.” {reported in (2011) 183 DLT
712} wherein it was held that even service of summons in
the suit can be treated as a notice under Section 106 TPA.
That judgment also held that if the notice is received by
tenant along with the documents of the suit (for eviction /
possession) then there is a termination of tenancy. This
discussion is contained in para 7 of the judgment in the
case of M/s. Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Limited (supra)
and the same reads as under:-

“7. The second argument that the legal notice dated

15.7.2006 was not received by the appellant, and
consequently the tenancy cannot be said to have been
validly terminated, is also an argument without substance
and there are many reasons for rejecting this argument.
These reasons are as follows:-

(ii) The Supreme Court in the case of Nopany Investments

(P)Ltd. Vs.Santokh Singh (HUF) 2008 (2) SCC 728 has
held that the tenancy would stand terminated under
general law on filing of a suit for eviction. Accordingly, in
view of the decision in the case of Nopany (supra) I hold
that even assuming the notice terminating tenancy was not
served upon the appellant (though it has been served and
as held by me above) the tenancy would stand terminated

Civil Suit No:146/2022, Smt. Indu Bala & Ors. Vs.Sh. Hemant Kumar
 8
on filing of the subject suit against the
appellant/defendant.

17. In this regard, I am keeping in view the amendment

brought about to Section 106 of the Transfer of Property
Act by Act 3 of 2003 and as per which Amendment no
objection with regard to termination of tenancy is
permitted on the ground that the legal notice did not
validly terminate the tenancy by a notice ending with the
expiry of the tenancy month, as long as a period of 15 days
was otherwise given to the tenant to vacate the property.
The intention of Legislature is therefore clear that
technical objections should not be permitted to defeat
substantial justice and the suit for possession of tenanted
premises once the tenant has a period of 15 days for
vacating the tenanted premises.”

18. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in

“SHRI SOURABH AGARWAL VERSUS SH. MEGH
RAJ MANSHARAMANI {RSA No.179/2013 decided on
09.01.2014} wherein it was held that there is no disputed
question of fact with respect to termination of tenancy
which requires trial. It was held:

“5. The legal position enunciated in the case of M/s.

Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Limited (supra) has
thereafter been consistently followed in hundreds of other
cases decided by the Courts in Delhi. The judgment in the
case of M/s. Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Limited
(supra) has also been followed in various other judgments
even of this Court. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no
disputed question of fact with respect to termination of
Civil Suit No:146/2022, Smt. Indu Bala & Ors. Vs.Sh. Hemant Kumar
 9
tenancy which requires trial and thus the ratio of the
Supreme Court judgment relied upon by the appellant will
not apply in the facts of the present case.”

19. In Ved Prakash v. M/s Murudhar Services Ltd

{reported in 2000(54) DRJ 654} it has been held –
“Failure to plead facts which constitute a valid defense,
must be read as admissions made as contemplated by Rule
VI of Order 12. To hold otherwise would be an
emasculation of judicial powers to dispense complete
justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.”

20. In the present case the only defense raised by the

defendant is the old age of the brother of the defendant and
that there was an oral understanding that the lease of the
premises shall be extended from time to time for 7 years.
The defendant while clearly / unconditionally admitting
the lease agreement and the relationship. Thus the plaintiff
is entitled to get back the possession of suit premises under
Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The defendant-herein has
absolutely no defense as to the possession registered Lease
Agreement and the physical possession of the suit
premises is concerned.

21. In view of the facts & circumstances of the case the

present suit liable to be decreed for possession of the
premises. Accordingly the suit of the plaintiff is decreed
for the relief of possession of the suit premises/tenanted
premises bearing no.E-396, Second Floor, Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi-110015. Decree sheet be drawn.

Civil Suit No:146/2022, Smt. Indu Bala & Ors. Vs.Sh. Hemant Kumar
 10
22. The other aspects relating to the arrears of rent /
mesne profit / damages / permanent injunction etc. are
triable.

Announced in the open court.

Digitally
signed by
( VEENA RANI )
VEENA
VEENA RANI Additional District Judge-06,
RANI Date:
2023.08.17
10:35:40 West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
+0530
Judge Code : DL271/Date:16-08-2023

Civil Suit No:146/2022, Smt. Indu Bala & Ors. Vs.Sh. Hemant Kumar
 11
IN THE COURT OF MS.VEENA RANI :ADJ-06, WEST
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

CNR No:DLTWT01-0000936-2022
Civil Suit No:146/2022

Smt. Indu Bala & Ors. .....Plaintiffs

Versus

Sh. Hemant Kumar .....Defendant

16-08-2023

Present: Sh. Parveen Sharma, ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.

Vide my separate order the application of the

plaintiff under order 12 rule 6 CPC is allowed qua the
relief of possession of the suit premises/tenanted premises
bearing no.E-396, Second Floor, Ramesh Nagar, New
Delhi-110015. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

The other aspects relating to the arrears of rent /

mesne profit / damages / permanent injunction etc. are
triable issue.

Put up for framing of issues regarding remaining

Digitally
reliefs on 29-11-2023. signed by
VEENA
VEENA RANI

Announced in the open court. RANI Date:

2023.08.17
10:35:47
+0530
( VEENA RANI )
Additional District Judge-06,
West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Judge Code : DL271/Date:16-08-2023

Civil Suit No:146/2022, Smt. Indu Bala & Ors. Vs.Sh. Hemant Kumar