SHYAMWATI DEVI & ANR. vs ASHWANI SAIN & ORS.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 19.03.2024
Judgment pronounced on: 27.06.2024
+ CM(M) 1151/2023
SHYAMWATI DEVI & ANR. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, Adv.
versus
ASHWANI SAIN & ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Gaurav Goyal, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Jetendra Kumar and Mr. V. K. Singh, Advs. for R-2 and 3.
CORAM:
HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
J U D G M E N T
1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/plaintiffs are aggrieved by the fact that learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (learned SCJ-cum-RC) has dismissed an application filed by them under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) vide impugned order dated 04.05.2023 in the Civil Suit bearing No.331/2021 titled as Smt. Shyamwati Devi & Anr. vs. Shri Ashwani Saini & Ors.
2. A brief set of facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner no.1 let out the suit property bearing No. IX/5067, Jeet Singh Market, Main Road, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi 110031 to the predecessors of the respondents. The petitioner no.1 had authorized her son, petitioner no.2, to collect rent on her behalf. Upon the death of their predecessors, the respondent nos.1 & 2 as their surviving legal heirs, inherited tenancy and on a request made by them, respondent no.3 was also inducted as a tenant.
3. The respondents had regularly been paying rent to the petitioners up to the month of January 2021, wherein they defaulted and thereafter stopped paying rent. Aggrieved by the actions of the respondents, the petitioners sent them a legal notice dated 18.02.2021, whereby the respondents were asked to vacate the suit property and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the same by 07.03.2021, along with the arrears due at Rs.5,000/- a month. The notice further stated that in case the respondent failed to hand over possession of the suit property, they would be liable to pay use and occupation charges at the prevailing market rate.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present civil suit for possession, recovery of rent and damages. Summons were duly served upon the respondents and the respondents proceeded to file their written statements. The petitioners then filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, on the basis of an admission made by the respondent no.1 in paragraph 2 of the preliminary objections as well as paragraph 2 of the reply on merits in the written statement.
5. Vide the impugned order dated 04.05.2023, the learned SCJ-cum-RC dismissed the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC while observing that a judgement on admission can only be passed when the admission is categorical and plain, which is not the situation in the present case.
6. Mr. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order suffers from illegality as no triable issues remains after the factum of tenancy was confirmed by the respondents. It is submitted that the provisions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC are in place to grant a summary judgement on admitted facts. In the present case, the facts qua the relief of possession have been admitted therefore the judgment on admission should follow in favour of the petitioners.
7. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Trial Court has heavily weighed on the fact of the pagdi amount paid by the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents to the petitioners. This amount of Rs.2,90,000/- cannot in any way raise a triable issue qua the relief of possession as this fact has no bearing on the question of the decree of possession.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents has refuted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, stating that there is no infirmity with the impugned order. The respondents have not admitted the factum of tenancy but have clearly averred that an amount of Rs. 2,90,000/- as pagdi was paid to retain the lawful possession of the suit property and in case petitioners deny the same, the said fact needs to be proved by way of a trial and it is not a case allowing for judgment on admissions.
9. It is relevant to note the observations made by the learned SCJ-cum-RC while disallowing the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC vide the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 which reads as under:
Vide this order, I shall decide the application filed by the plaintiffs u/o 12 Rule 6 CPC seeking judgment on admission of the defendants.
2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for possession of suit property i.e. Private shop no. 7, property no. 005067, Jeet Singh Market, Main Road, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-31 where defendants are alleged to be tenants at a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- which they have not vacated despite service of legal notice dated 18.02.2021.
3. In the present application, plaintiffs have stated that in para no. 2 of preliminary objections and para no. 2 of reply on merits of the written statement filed by the defendant no. 1, he has admitted his status in the suit property as that of a tenant and he has also admitted the rate of rent as Rs. 5,000/- per month. It is further stated that defendant has not
denied ownership of the plaintiffs with regard to the suit property and the legal notice dated 18.02.2021 terminating the tenancy and asking for possession of the suit property has also been served upon the defendants which is evidence from their reply to legal notice dated 05.03.2021.
4. No written reply has been filed on behalf of the defendants.
5. I have heard arguments and perused the record.
6. In the case of Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd v. Unied Bank Of India & Ors (2000), the Apex Court had observed that under Order 12, Rule 6, the Court has the jurisdiction to pass a judgment in the favour of the plaintiff on the basis of an admitted claim. However, it is pertinent to note, that the scope of this provision cannot be limited to such a degree that the plaintiff becomes entitled to claim a favorable decree on the basis of a plain admission by the defendant.
7. In the written statements filed on behalf of defendant no. I as well as defendant no 2 & 3, a consistent plea has been taken by the defendants that the suit property was given on pagadi by plaintiffs to the predecessors of the defendants for an amount of Rs. 2,90,000/and the amount of rent was fixed as Rs. 300/- per month which has subsequently been increased to Rs. 5,000/- per month in the year 2020. It is well settled that a judgment on the admission of the defendant u/o 12 Rule 6 CPC can be passed only when such admission is categorical and plain. Reference may be bad to Karan Kapoor vs. Madhuri Kumar reported as 2022 SCC Online SC 791. In the present case, no such clear admission have come forth on the part of the defendants and they should get an opportunity to lead evidence to prove their defense.
8. Therefore, the application filed by the plaintiffs u/o 12 Rule 6 CPC is dismissed.
10. A bare reading of the impugned order reveals that same is perfunctory and slip shot in nature. Having set out the minimal facts of the case, the learned SCJ-cum-RC heedlessly rejected the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC without even giving any reasoning in the order, meeting the grounds in the application. The application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC cannot be disposed of in a laconic manner.
11. It was imperative on the part of the learned SCJ-cum-RC to set out, in the order, the reasons which according to him did not meet with the assertions made by the petitioners as regards to the alleged admission and consequently, the pleas taken by the respondents.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 is set aside and matter is remanded back. The learned Trial Court to de novo consider the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for a decision on merits. The application be disposed of within four weeks from today after affording an opportunity to both the parties to address arguments.
13. With the above observations, petition stands disposed of.
SHALINDER KAUR, J.
JUNE 27, 2024
ab
CM(M) 1151/2023 Page 1 of 5