Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3255 (DEL)

Shalu Gill v. Joginder Pal Babbar

2014-12-15

A.K.PATHAK

body2014
JUDGMENT : A.K. Pathak, J. (Oral):-- 1. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession, permanent injunction, recovery of damages and unpaid rent against the appellant. On an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as CPC) filed by the respondent, trial court has passed a decree of possession. As regard other reliefs, suit is still pending. Aggrieved by the decree of possession, appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The respondent alleged in the plaint that he had let out the DDA Flat No. 307, Ground Floor, LIG Category, Pocket-3, Madipur, New Delhi to appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/- with effect from 01.05.2012 for a period of 11 months, vide a registered Rent Deed dated 27.04.2012. After two months, the appellant stopped paying rent. Despite his request, the appellant did not pay rent, consequently, respondent terminated the tenancy vide notice dated 24.09.2012 and called upon the appellant to vacate the suit property within 30 days. Since the appellant did not vacate the suit property, hence, the suit. 3. After service of summons, appellant appeared in Court on 06.02.20l3 and stated that she had not engaged a counsel. She was granted time to engage a counsel. She was given liberty to approach the Legal Aid Authority in case she was not in a position to engage a lawyer and the matter was adjourned to 25.03.2013. On the said date, the appellant appeared through her counsel Sh. Shashvat Kumar. Her brother-in-law (dewar) also appeared in court along with said counsel. Subject to costs of Rs. 500/-, written statement of appellant was taken on record and the matter was adjourned to 28.05.2013. Subsequently, on an application under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC appellant was directed to pay rent from 1.11.2012 to 1.11.2013 to the respondent in four instalments. Appellant paid the amount vide three cheques dated 29.11.2013, 29.01.2014 and 28.05.2014. 4. In her written statement, the appellant did not deny the landlord tenant relationship between the parties. Execution and registration of the Rent Deed dated 27.04.2012 was also not disputed. However, it was denied that the appellant stopped paying rent with effect from 01.07.2012. She alleged that she had already paid the rent upto the month of October 2012. 4. In her written statement, the appellant did not deny the landlord tenant relationship between the parties. Execution and registration of the Rent Deed dated 27.04.2012 was also not disputed. However, it was denied that the appellant stopped paying rent with effect from 01.07.2012. She alleged that she had already paid the rent upto the month of October 2012. Respondent had made a categorical statement that vide legal notice dated 24.09.2012, tenancy was terminated and appellant was called upon to vacate the suit property within 30 days. The receipt of the notice was not disputed. However, it was alleged that respondent got the legal notice issued on the frivolous grounds, despite the fact that there was no breach of agreement with regard to non payment of rent. Subsequently, an application for amendment of written statement was filed but on 03.07.2014 which was dismissed. By way of amendment appellant sought to incorporate that her father-in-law was a tenant and rent was Rs. 2500/-, inasmuch as he paid Rs. 3,50,000/- as security. Another application was filed in which it was stated that her husband and brother-in-law were tenants on the monthly rent of Rs. 1500/-. It was further alleged that respondent took nude photographs of appellant and started blackmailing her. He took her forcibly to Sub-Registrar’s Office on 27th April, 2012 and got the Rent Deed executed by blackmailing her. However, the fact remains that original written statement stands and the defence taken therein alone has to be considered. 5. It is trite law that in a suit for possession filed by a landlord against the tenant following three ingredients have to be established by the plaintiff:- (a) there exists a landlord tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. (b) rent of the premises being more than Rs. 3,500/- so as to exclude the applicability of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. (c) termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 6. In Jatinder Nath Gupta v. STC of India MANU/DE/1869/2012, a learned Single Judge of this court has held that while dealing with an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, relating to a suit for possession, three factors must be satisfied by the landlord: (i) the landlord tenant relationship should not be disputed; (ii) the rate of rent should be over Rs. 3,500/-; and (iii) the tenancy should have been validly terminated. 3,500/-; and (iii) the tenancy should have been validly terminated. Similar is the view expressed in Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Pal Properties Pvt. and Ors., 2002 (62) DRJ 623 , Punjab National Bank v. Virendra Prakash & Another 188 (2012) DLT 48 and Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. v. Kavita P. Lalwani 191 (2012) DLT 594. 7. In Charanjit Lal Mehra and Ors. v. Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan and Anr. AIR 2005 SC 2765 , Supreme Court has held that Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is enacted for the purpose and in order to expedite the trials and if there is any admission on behalf of the defendants or an admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute, then in such a case, in order to expedite and dispose of the matter such admission can be acted upon. 8. The legal position thus emerges that a decree on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC can be passed where there is a clear, unambiguous and unequivocal admission made by one party of the case of the other party. However, no such straight jacket formula can be adopted. Each case has to be viewed in its own facts. The admission can be inferred from the pleadings, documents placed on record or otherwise. Wherever there is a clear admission of facts on the face of which it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed, a judgement can be passed. 9. Now coming back to the facts of present case, landlord – tenant relationship is not in dispute. Rent of property being more than Rs. 3,500/- is also an admitted fact in view of the registered Rent Agreement. Thus, provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act are not attracted in this case. As regards termination of tenancy is concerned, the same has also been admitted in the written statement. Even otherwise, the service of summons with the plaint itself amounts to notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. (please refer to Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF) 146 (2008) DLT 217 (SC) and Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Ltd. v. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) and Anr. 182 (2011) DLT 402. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent was blackmailing the appellant on the pretext that he was in possession of her nude photographs. (please refer to Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF) 146 (2008) DLT 217 (SC) and Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Ltd. v. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) and Anr. 182 (2011) DLT 402. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent was blackmailing the appellant on the pretext that he was in possession of her nude photographs. Appellant had not engaged Sh. Shashvat Kumar nor had authorized him to appear in the matter. Said counsel was engaged by the plaintiff. Thus, her written statement cannot be read against her. I do not find any force in this contention. This is the only written statement on record, duly signed by her in English language. A perusal of record shows that appellant’s husband and brother-in-law had also appeared in court along with her as well as her counsel on different occasions, inasmuch as, cheques in court were also given by her while accompanied by her husband. Her statement recorded in Court on 15.07.2014 also shows that she is not a truthful person. She deposed that name of her counsel was Mr. Rajeev, however, the record shows that Mr. Shashvat Kumar had appeared on 25.03.2013 along with her brother-in-law, inasmuch as, written statement has been signed by the appellant that too in English. 11. Learned counsel has next contended that without framing issues trial court could not have pronounced the judgment since no clear admissions of facts as alleged in the plaint, were made. He has placed reliance on Kochukesavan Nair v. Gouri Amma 1967 KLT 257 . The judgment relied upon by the appellant’s counsel is in the context of different facts. In this case, clear, categorical and unambiguous admissions have been made in the written statement with regard to the landlord-tenant relationship, amount of the rent as also with regard to the termination of the tenancy, thus, trial court has rightly pronounced the judgement on admission. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.