Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: December 03, 2014
ABHISHEK CHAUHAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Nischal Kr. Neeraj, Advocate
Through: Nemo.
JUDGMENT
The concurrent findings of both the courts below are that respondent-plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession of the suit property. Trial court vide order of 6th June, 2012 has suo moto exercised powers under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC while noting that the rent of the subject premises is more than `3,500/- per month and notice of the suit for possession has been already received by defendant and so, respondent-plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession of the suit premises.
The First Appellate Court has found trial court’s order of 6th June, 2012 to be cryptic one and vide detailed order, the First Appellate Court has maintained the decree for possession while holding that appellant- defendant has admitted the existence of relationship of lessor and lessee
2014:DHC:6670
At the hearing, learned counsel for appellant contended that without hearing the appellant, trial court had summarily decreed the suit for possession by a cryptic order and the so-called admission is not a clear admission and so, the judgment of the courts below deserve to be set aside.
Apex Court in Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. Vs. M/S Jasbir
Singh Chadha (HUF) & anr. AIR 2010 SC 1890 has reiterated that whether the admission made is clear or not, depends upon the facts of the case and unless there is clear admission, power under Order 12 Rule 6
CPC cannot be invoked.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the judgments of the courts below and the material on record, I find that there is an implied admission of relationship of appellant being the lessee of respondent in the written statement, as appellant-defendant in paragraph No.2 of the written statement has called upon respondent-plaintiff to produce the original rent agreements of the period from the year 2004 till 2011, which are said to be in possession of respondent-plaintiff. In the written statement, appellant-defendant asserts that he has already paid six months’ rent in advance while signing the rent agreement. Pertinently, the admitted rent of the suit property was `4,500/- per month besides water and electricity charges. The aspect of termination of lease is also not disputed in the written statement by appellant- defendant.
Apex Court in Payal Vision Limited Vs. Radhika Choudhary
RSA NO. 358/2014 Page 3
(2012) 11 SCC 405 has reiterated that a decree for possession under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC can be passed if the existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is established and the termination of tenancy is there. Affidavit of counsel who claims that trial court had passed the order at his back is not forthcoming. The First Appellate Court has noted that the presence of appellant’s counsel is marked by the trial court and so it is difficult to accept that trial court has passed the order of 6th June, 2012 without hearing the parties. In any case, full-fledged hearing has been afforded to appellant by the First Appellate Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, the courts below have rightly decreed the suit for possession of the suit property while invoking provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC. No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. The concurrent findings returned against the appellant do not suffer from any perversity. Consequentially, this appeal and applications are dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE DECEMBER 03, 2014 r