Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3088 (DEL)

Prem Kumar Sharma v. Naresh Kumar Saini

2012-11-23

M.L.MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT : M.L. Mehta, J. 1. This revision petition seeks assailing of order dated 14.09.2012 of ADJ-1, North whereby an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, filed by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit CS 98/2009, was dismissed. 2. The petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits and mandatory injunction against the respondents. The case was set up on the averments that the suit property was let out by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 and who in turn had sub let the same to respondent No. 2, without the consent of the petitioner. The application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC was filed by the petitioner alleging that he is entitled to a decree of possession. It was submitted that the respondent No. 1 had not denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. It was further submitted that notice of termination of tenancy was repeatedly served upon both the respondents. The suit and the application were contested by the respondents before the ADJ. The learned ADJ observed that perusal of the written statement of respondent No. 1 shows that he has specifically denied to be tenant in the suit premises or his having sub let the same to respondent No. 2. According to the respondent No. 1 there never existed relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioner and he is not in possession of the suit premises and thus, the suit was not maintainable against him. The plea of respondent No. 2 was that the suit property was let out to him by the petitioner. He had also disputed the service as well as the validity of the alleged notice dated 12th August 2009. Considering the plea of the parties, the learned ADJ observed, and rightly so, that it could not be said that there existed any unequivocal and unambiguous admissions on the part of the respondents, which would entitle the petitioner to a decree of possession under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. He also observed that in view of the dispute having been raised by the respondent No. 2 regarding the service and validity of the termination of tenancy, this also required to be proved by way of evidence by the petitioner. 3. He also observed that in view of the dispute having been raised by the respondent No. 2 regarding the service and validity of the termination of tenancy, this also required to be proved by way of evidence by the petitioner. 3. There is no dispute with regard to proposition that on the admission of facts by the defendants, the court can render a judgment either in respect of the whole claim or a part of it on its own motion or on the application of a party, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties. However, for the applicability of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC entitling the plaintiff to a decree based on admission, the law is very clear, having been laid by catena of judgments. Dealing with the scope of the provisions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, the Supreme Court in the case of Uttam Singh Duggal & CO. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2000 (7) SCC 120 held thus: “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 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.” 4. In the case Delhi Jal Board Vs. 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.” 4. In the case Delhi Jal Board Vs. Surendra P. Malik 2003 111 AD Delhi 419, the Division Bench of this Court, dealing with the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC held thus: “The test, therefore, is (i) whether admissions of fact arise in the suit, (ii) whether such admissions are plain, unambiguous and unequivocal, (iii) whether the defense set up is such that it requires evidence for determination of the issues and (iv) whether objections raised against rendering the judgment are such which go to the root of the matter or whether these are inconsequential making it impossible for the party to succeed even if entertained. It is immaterial at what stage the judgment is sought or whether admissions of fact are found expressly in the pleadings or not because such admissions could be gathered even constructively for the purpose of rendering a speedy judgment.” 5. In the instant case, as it is noted above, it cannot be said that there existed unequivocal and unambiguous admissions on the part of the respondents, which would entitle the petitioner to a decree of possession under Order 12 rule 6 CPC. Both the respondents have raised certain triable issues which can only be determined by evidence. 6. In view of all this, I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the ADJ. The petition is therefore dismissed in limini.