Delhi High Court
Simmi Walia vs Rakesh Arora on 30 January, 2025
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 30.01.2025
+ RFA 229/2023 & CM APPL.13493/2023
SIMMI WALIA .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Gyan Mitra, Advocate.
versus
RAKESH ARORA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Sunil Ahuja,
Advocate.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The appellant has assailed judgment and decree dated 04.01.2023
passed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC by the learned Additional District
Judge, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the appellant tenant
was directed to restore possession of the tenanted property to the respondent
landlord in view of admissions made in the pleadings. On the basis of
advance intimation, the respondent landlord entered appearance through
counsel. I have heard learned counsel for both sides and have examined the
digitized record of the trial court.
2. The present respondent had filed suit for recovery of possession of the
third floor of premises bearing no.162, Ram Vihar, Delhi as well as for
RFA 229/2023 Page 1 of 10 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT,
GIRISH KATHPALIA
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435
f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI,
serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CBD2EEE6
0402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified Date: 2025.01.30 17:40:23 -08’00’
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:30.01.2025
18:54:59
injunction and recovery of arrears of rent with interest and of mesne profits.
In his plaint, the present respondent pleaded that the appellant was inducted
as a tenant in respect of two bedrooms, drawing cum dining room, one
kitchen, toilet/bathroom and balcony at third floor of the premises no.162,
Ram Vihar, Delhi by virtue of registered lease deed dated 22.08.2019, rate
of rent being Rs.34,000/- per month exclusive of other charges; that the
tenancy expired with efflux of time on 20.07.2020 but on account of Covid
pandemic, at request of appellant, more time was granted to her to vacate the
subject property by 20.01.2021; that the appellant paid rent till 20.01.2021
but thereafter, neither paid any rent nor vacated the subject property despite
repeated requests of the respondent, so in order to avoid any technicalities,
though the lease stood expired with efflux of time, the respondent issued
quit notice dated 26.03.2021, thereby terminating the tenancy by the
midnight of 20.04.2021, to which the appellant sent a reply dated
31.03.2021 and opted not to vacate the subject property.
3. In her written statement, the appellant admitted relationship of
tenancy between the parties and pleaded that after she paid a cash amount of
Rs. 5,00,000/-, parties orally agreed that the rate of rent be reduced from Rs.
34,000/- per month to Rs. 24,000/- per month with effect from 01.03.2021.
Further, the appellant resisted the suit, pleading that according to the
registered lease deed, the tenanted premises were top floor and not third
floor of premises no.162, Ram Vihar, Delhi. For this reason, the appellant
pleaded that the suit is liable to be dismissed.
RFA 229/2023 Page 2 of 10 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT,
GIRISH KATHPALIA
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d4
35f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI,
serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CBD2EEE
60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified Date: 2025.01.30 17:40:07 -08’00’
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:30.01.2025
18:54:59
4. On the basis of rival pleadings, the present respondent filed an
application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, to which a reply was filed by the
appellant, reiterating her stand taken in the written statement. After hearing
both sides, the learned trial court allowed the application under Order XII
Rule 6 CPC, thereby directing restoration of possession of the subject
property to the respondent landlord.
5. Hence, the present appeal.
6. During arguments today, learned counsel for appellant submits that
the top floor, as mentioned in the lease deed was the fourth floor and not the
third floor of premises no.162, Ram Vihar, Delhi. Learned counsel for
appellant elucidates that since the site plan filed with the plaint was of top
floor, the quit notice pertained to the top floor and even the lease deed was
of the top floor, it is not a case of unambiguous admission, so the trial court
ought to have taken the suit through full dress trial instead of writing the
judgment on admissions. In response to a specific query, learned counsel for
appellant admits that the appellant is in possession of only the third floor and
not of the fourth floor.
7. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for respondent takes me
through records, including the amended plaint to buttress his argument that
parties were always under the impression that third floor is the top floor
RFA 229/2023 Page 3 of 10 pages
GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI,
serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CBD2EEE60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.01.30 17:39:52 -08’00’
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:30.01.2025
18:54:59
insofar as the fourth floor is not a completely built up floor. In this regard,
learned senior counsel also takes me through appellant’s own reply to the
quit notice.
8. For ready reference, the provision under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is
extracted below:
“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 up in accordance with the judgment and the decree
shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.”
8.1 No law expects any litigant to undergo rigmaroles of protracted trials
and litigations where there is no dispute on the relevant aspects. Where the
defendant does not dispute claim of the plaintiff in whole or in part, it would
be counterproductive for the justice dispensing machinery to make the
plaintiff undergo full dress trial. Where the defendant admits the entire or
part of the claim raised by the plaintiff, it would be fair and reasonable for
the court to allow the claim of the plaintiff to the extent of admissions. The
provisions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC were enacted to give the parties a
speedy judgment where there is no controversy. Earlier, the provision under
Order XII Rule 6 CPC stipulated that any party may at any stage of a suit,
where admissions of facts have been made either on pleadings or otherwise,
apply to the court for such judgment or order as upon such admissions he
RFA 229/2023 Page 4 of 10 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT,
GIRISH KATHPALIA 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
postalCode=110003, st=DELHI,
serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CBD2EEE60402C487965FF8
01E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.01.30 17:39:36 -08’00’
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:30.01.2025
18:54:59
may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other
question between the parties and the court may upon such application make
such order or judgment as the court may think just. The Law Commission of
India in its 54th report suggested an amendment in the said provision in order
to enable the court deliver a judgment not only on the application of a party
but on its own motion as well. Accordingly, the provision was amended in
order to further the ends of justice and to widen the scope of the provision
by empowering the judges to use it ex debito justitiae (an obligation of
justice). Reading the provision under Order XII Rule 6 CPC as its stands, in
an appropriate case, a party to the lis on the basis of admissions of the rival
party can press for judgment as a matter of legal right. However, the court
always retains discretion in the matter of pronouncing the judgment. The
expressions “admission of fact” and “either in the pleading or otherwise,
whether orally or in writing” used in Order XII Rule 6 CPC show the wide
expanse of the provision to the extent that the admissions in question can be
inferred from facts and circumstances of the case also.
8.2 A Division Bench of this court in the case of Bhartia Industries Ltd.
vs Rajiv Saluja, 112 (2004) DLT 82 DB, upheld the judgment of the learned
Single Judge, whereby the suit was decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC in
view of admission of facts in regard to the relationship of landlord and
tenant, termination of tenancy by efflux of time or in any case by way of quit
notice which was duly served on defendant.
RFA 229/2023 Page 5 of 10 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT,
GIRISH KATHPALIA 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
postalCode=110003, st=DELHI,
serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CBD2EEE60402C487965F
F801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.01.30 17:39:19 -08’00’
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:30.01.2025
18:54:59
8.3 In the case of National Radio and Electronic Company Ltd. vs
Motion Picture Association, 122 (2005) DLT 629 DB, a Division Bench of
this court upheld the decree passed by the trial court under Order XII Rule 6
CPC in view of admission of relationship of tenancy, rate of rent being more
than Rs. 3,500/- per month and service of quit notice by the defendant.
8.4 In the case of Karam Kapahi vs Lal Chand, 168 (2010) DLT 501 SC,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:
“46. The principles behind Order 12 Rule 6 are to give the
plaintiff a right to speedy judgment. Under this Rule either party
may get rid of so much of the rival claims about ‘which there is
no controversy’ [See the dictum of Lord Jessel, the Master of
Rolls, in Thorp versus Holdsworth in (1876) 3 Chancery
Division 637 at 640]. In this connection, it may be noted that
Order 12 Rule 6 was amended by the Amendment Act of 1976.
47. Prior to amendment the Rule read thus: “6. Judgment on
admissions. Any party may, at any stage of a suit, where
admissions of facts have been made, either on pleadings or
otherwise, apply to the Court for such judgment or order as
upon such admission he may be entitled to, without waiting for
the determination of any other question between the parties and
the Court may upon such application make such order or give
such judgment, as the Court may think just.”
48. In the 54th Law Commission Report, an amendment was
suggested to enable the Court to give a judgment not only on the
application of a party but on its own motion. It is thus clear that
the amendment was brought about to further the ends of justice
and give these provisions a wider sweep by empowering judges
to use it ex debito justitiae, a Latin term, meaning a debt of
justice. In our opinion the thrust of the amendment is that in an
appropriate case, a party, on the admission of the other party,
can press for judgment, as a matter of legal right. However, the
Court always retains its discretion in the matter of pronouncing
judgment.
RFA 229/2023 Page 6 of 10 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT,
GIRISH KATHPALIA
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f9
7626cacca, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI,
serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CBD2EEE604
02C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.01.30 17:39:04 -08’00’
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:30.01.2025
18:54:59
49. If the provision of Order 12 Rule 1 is compared with Order
12 Rule 6, it becomes clear that the provision of Order 12 Rule 6
is wider in as much as the provision of order 12 Rule 1 is limited
to admission by ‘pleading or otherwise in writing’ but in Order
12 Rule 6 the expression ‘or otherwise’ is much wider in view of
the words used therein namely: ‘admission of fact………either in
the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing’.
50. Keeping the width of this provision in mind this Court held
that under this rule admissions can be inferred from facts and
circumstances of the case [See Charanjit Lal Mehra and others
v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan (Smt.) and another, (2005) 11 SCC 279
at page 285 (para 8)]. Admissions in answer to interrogatories
are also covered under this Rule [See Mullas’s commentary on
the Code, 16th Edition, Volume II, page 2177].
51. In the case of Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd., v. United
Bank of India and others, (2000) 7 SCC 120, this Court, while
construing this provision, held that the Court should not unduly
narrow down its application as the object is to enable a party to
obtain speedy judgment”.
8.5 In the case of National Textile Corporation vs Ashval Vaderaa,
167(2010) DLT 602, this court reiterated thus:
“17. It is settled law that admissions need not be made
expressly in the pleadings. Even on the constructive
admissions Court can proceed to pass a decree in plaintiff’s
favour. In order to invoke the provisions of Order XII Rule 6
CPC, admissions de hors pleadings may also be considered as is
evident from the use of the word “otherwise” in the said
provision. [See Shikharchand vs. Mst. Bari Bai, AIR 1974 MP
75; K. Kishore vs. Allahabad Bank, 1997 (41) DRJ 698; Uttam
Singh Dugal vs. UBI, (2000) 7 SCC 120; Rajiv Srivastava vs.
Sanjiv Tuli, 119 (2005) DLT 202; Rama Ghei vs. U.P. State
Handlom Corpn., 91 (2001) DLT 386 and R.N. Sachdeva vs.
R.L. Mahajan Charitable Trust, 1997 (41) DRJ 698]. Such
admissions may be contained in documents written or executed
between the parties before the action is brought or even from the
statements of parties recorded in the Court, including statementsRFA 229/2023 Page 7 of 10 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT,GIRISH KATHPALIA 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
postalCode=110003, st=DELHI,
serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CBD2EEE60402C487965FF8
01E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.01.30 17:38:49 -08’00’Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:30.01.2025
18:54:59
recorded under Order X Rule 1 CPC. Admissions may also be
gleaned from vague and unspecific denials made in the
pleadings and documents, which on the face of it appear to
have been deliberately made in order to mislead the Court, or
gathered from the non- traversal of specific averments made in
the pleadings and documents.
18. It is the bane of the judicial system that with a view to
protract and drag on the case, a litigant who is a wrongdoer
often takes all sorts of false and legally untenable pleas. Such
litigants should not be allowed to hijack the judicial process and
to subvert the cause of justice. Where it is palpably clear to the
Court that the defence is with the sole purpose of protracting
the proceedings to the advantage of the wrongdoer and the
disadvantage of the aggrieved party, it becomes the bounden
duty of the Court to save the latter from going through the
rigmarole of a futile and expensive trial. For this, the Court has
been invested with sweeping powers by a number of provisions
in various statutes, the most potent of which are the provisions
of Order XII Rule 6 read with Order VIII Rules 3 and 4 CPC.
Regrettably, the said provisions, though exploited by the Courts
to the advantage of the judicial process, have yet to reach the
optimum level of exploitation. It thus becomes imperative on this
Court to use the powers reposed in it to prevent misuse of the
judicial process, to cut short laws’ delays and to save the
aggrieved party from the travails of a long drawn out litigation,
often outliving his life span itself and falling into the lap of his
survivors.”
(emphasis supplied)
9. Falling back to the present case, evidently, a non issue is being tried
to be coloured as an issue. It is nobody’s case that the appellant is in
possession of the top/fourth floor of premises no.162, Ram Vihar, Delhi. It
is the admitted case of both sides that the appellant is in possession of only
the third floor of the said premises as a tenant.
10. Paragraph 2 of the amended plaint (pdf page 75) specifically pleads
RFA 229/2023 Page 8 of 10 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT,
GIRISH KATHPALIA
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca
, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI,
serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CBD2EEE60402C48796
5FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.01.30 17:38:31 -08’00’
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:30.01.2025
18:54:59
that the appellant is a tenant in respect of third floor of the said premises. In
the corresponding paragraph of the amended written statement, there is no
denial in that regard. In fact, in paragraph 1 of the amended written
statement (pdf page 84), the appellant specifically pleaded that she is in
possession of the third floor of the said premises as a tenant.
11. Therefore, the admitted position is that the appellant was a tenant
under the respondent and the said tenancy was qua third floor of premises
no.162, Ram Vihar, Delhi.
12. Similarly as regards the rate of rent, pleadings of the respondent are
specific and clear that the rate of rent was Rs.34,000/- per month. The
response pleadings of the appellant are that the said amount of rent was
reduced to Rs. 24,000/- per month. Even if this stand of the appellant is
assumed to be correct, rate of rent agreed between the parties was above
Rs.3500/- per month, so the appellant is not entitled to protection from
eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
13. Coming to the quit notice, although the tenancy stood expired with
efflux of time, as a matter of abundant precaution, the respondent issued quit
notice, in response to which the appellant again stated that the tenanted
premises are third floor and not the top floor. Besides, it is no longer res
integra that filing of eviction suit in itself is a quit notice in such cases
[Reference: M/s. Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. vs. M/s. Jasbir Singh
RFA 229/2023 Page 9 of 10 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH COURT,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
postalCode=110003, st=DELHI,
serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B40F80CBD2EEE60402C487965FF801E26FA,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.01.30 17:38:14 -08’00’
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:30.01.2025
18:54:59
Chadha (HUF) & Anr., (2011) 182 DLT 402 and Gulshan Kumar vs. Indu
Soni, 2024:DHC:9327].
14. The issue as to whether the tenanted premises are top floor or third
floor is practically a non issue in the present case in view of above
discussion. It is quite evident from record that both sides were always under
the impression that third floor is the top floor, because the floor above that
was not a completely built up floor. In any case, the appellant was
admittedly inducted in the third floor and continues to be in occupation of
the third floor and not above the third floor. Because of this, the description
in the site plan, quit notice and even lease deed pales into insignificance.
And pushing the parties to go through the rigmaroles of civil trial on these
issues would be complete travesty of justice.
15. In view of above discussion, I am unable to find any infirmity in the
impugned judgment and decree, so the same are upheld and the present
appeal and pending application are dismissed.
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=DELHI HIGH
COURT,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af39
62c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, postalCode=110003,
KATHPALIA
st=DELHI,
serialNumber=D3E86796451EC45C07B5D15570996B
40F80CBD2EEE60402C487965FF801E26FA, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.01.30 17:37:52 -08’00’
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 30, 2025/ry
RFA 229/2023 Page 10 of 10 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:30.01.2025
18:54:59
[ad_1]
Source link