Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS(OS) 2283/2013
JUDGMENT
Through : Mr.Amit Vohra and Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Advs.
Through : Mr.Ashish Datta, Adv. for defendant no.1.
Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Adv. for defendants no.2 and 3.
1. This is an application filed by plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 for pronouncement of judgment on admissions.
2. The necessary facts, which have given to rise to the filing of the present application, are that the plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the shop bearing no.G-1, Ground Floor, having a super area of 2968.39 sq. ft. and covered area of 1484.19 sq. ft., forming part of North Square Mall, built on plots bearing no.F-1, F-2 and F-3, District Centre, Wazirpur, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi.
3. As per the plaint, the plaintiff entered into a registered lease deed dated 27.12.2010 with defendant no.1 as well as late Sh.Chiranji Lal Chopra for a period of five years, commencing from 1.2.2011. Upon 2014:DHC:5598 the death of late Sh.Chiranji Lal Chopra the tenancy jointly devolved upon his legal heirs i.e. defendants no.2 and 3 (which is disputed by defendants no.2 and 3). The premises was taken on rent by defendant no.1 and late Sh.Chiranji Lal Chopra for the purposes of running a restaurant in the name and style of „Night Fever Club and Lounge‟. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs.1.50 lakhs, per month, for the first year commencing from 1.2.2011 to 31.2.2012. Subsequently, the monthly rent was increased to Rs.1,57,500/- from 1.2.2012 to 31.1.2013 and Rs.1,65,375/- for the third year commencing from 1.2.2013 to 31.1.2014. The rent was to increase from Rs.1,73,644/from 1.2.2014 to 31.1.2015 and Rs.1,82,326/- for the fifth year, commencing from 1.2.2015 to 31.1.2016. In addition to the rent, defendant no.1 and late Sh.Chiranji Lal Chopra were to pay electricity, water and maintenance charges directly to the authorities.
4. As per the terms and conditions of the registered Lease Deed dated 27.12.2010 defendant no.1 and late Sh.Chiranji Lal Chopra were to make the payment of rent on or before the seventh day of each English Calendar month in advance and in case of default the plaintiff was entitled to terminate the lease as per Clause 3(b) of the Registered Lease Deed dated 27.12.2010. Since defendant no.1 and late Sh.Chiranji Lal Chopra failed to make the payment of rent from January, 2013, and were in arrears of rent of Rs.16,45,875/- upto the date of filing of the suit and in addition thereto to maintenance charges of Rs.38.00 lakhs and electricity charges of Rs.2.00 lakhs, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 29.7.2013 to the defendants thereby terminating the tenancy on account of non-payment of rent, however, the said legal notice was not replied to by the defendants.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the registered lease deed is an admitted document. The notice terminating the tenancy was issued to the defendants at the correct address, although no reply was received. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the postal receipt, which has been filed on record, to show that the legal notice which was sent by Speed Post was duly acknowledged by the defendants. Counsel further submits that only vague and bald denials have been made by defendant no.1 in the written statement. Counsel contends that in the written statement defendant no.1 has not denied the factum of a registered Lease Deed dated 27.12.2010 and consequently the rent, which is over Rs.3500/-, has also not been denied.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that denial, if any, by the defendants is evasive and it is not specific and, thus, no denial in the eyes of law. In support of this submission counsel has relied upon Ghanshyam Das Soni and Anr. v. Sundri Apparels (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported at 196 (2013) DLT 196, wherein the Court has discussed the doctrine of non-traverse. Para 9 of the judgment reads as under:
7. Learned counsel for defendant no.1 has opposed the present application on the ground that the rent was not paid as the maintenance services were not provided by the mall to the defendants. Counsel further submits that since a No Objection Certificate was not given by the landlord to the mall, officials of the mall refused to accept the maintenance charges. It is further submitted that defendant no.1 was not able to use and utilise the permission on account of noncooperation on the part of the plaintiffs. Counsel contends that it was orally agreed between the parties that maintenance charges will be shared equally between the plaintiff and defendant no.1.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the registered lease deed executed between the parties. The arguments raised by counsel for defendant no.1 do not find mention in any of the paragraphs of the written statement filed. In fact most of the paras of the plaint have been denied by defendant no.1 in the written statement by stating that “the contents of para under reply are matter of record and the plaintiff be put to strict proof therefrom and any submission contrary to the record are totally wrong, false and hence denied”.
9. In reply to the specific paras with regard to execution of the lease deed, defendant no.1 has replied in the following manner:
10. In response to the monthly rent, in para 6 of the written statement it is stated by defendant no.1 as under:
11. A reading of the written statement would show that defendant no.1 has only made a general denial with regard to the tenancy, the lease agreement and non-payment of rent. Since the lese deed has been placed on record and there is no specific denial of the same, it is deemed to be admitted. No document has been placed on record by defendant no.1 to show that up-to-date rent was paid. There is also no reply to the legal notice issued by the plaintiff to defendant no.1.
12. Learned counsel for defendants no.2 and 3 submits that while defendants no.2 and 3 have no objection if a decree with regard to possession is passed as after the demise of late Sh.Chiranji Lall Chopra defendants no.2 and 3, who are the legal heirs of late Sh. Chiranji Lall Chopra had no role to play in the running of the restaurant and defendant no.3 has also retired on 31.3.2012.
13. The law with regard to Order 12 Rule 6 CPC more particularly pertaining to tenants has been well-settled by a catena of judgments.
14. The law with regard to Order 12 Rule 6 CPC has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Uttam Singh Duggal and Company Ltd. Vs. United Bank of India & Ors, reported at (2000) 7 SCC 120, relevant portion of which reads as under:
15. It was observed in the case of Rajiv Sharma and Another Vs. Rajiv Gupta, reported at (2004) 72 DRJ 540, that the purpose of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is to enable the party to obtain speedy justice to the extent of relevant admission, which according to the admission, if the other party is entitled for. Admission on which judgment can be claimed must be clear and unequivocal.
16. In the case of Ms. Rohini V R.B.Singh, reported at 155 (2008) DLT 440, it has been held as under: “It is trite to say that in order to obtain judgment on admission, the admissions must be clear and unequivocal. In the matter of landlord and tenant there are only three aspects which are required to be examined – (i) Relationship of landlord and tenant; (ii) expiry of tenancy by efflux of time or determination of valid notice to quit; and (iii) the rent of the premises being more than Rs.3500/-, per month, in view of the Act”.
17. Upon considering judgments rendered by the High Court, it can be held that while dealing with an application under Order XII 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.
18. A bare reading of Order XII Rule 6 CPC would show that the intention and purpose of the legislature was not to prolong the trial, however, in case of any admission a decree was to be passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. Reading of the provision and the law laid down show that the admission need not be only in the pleadings, but it can be either in any document or otherwise and at any stage.
19. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants with regard to prayer A of the plaint pertaining to handing over of physical possession of the suit property bearing no.G-1, Ground Floor, having its super area 2968.39 sq. ft. and covered area of 1484.19 sq. ft. forming part of North Square Mall, built on plots no.F-1, F-2 and F-3, District Centre, Wazirpur, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi. All rights of defendants no.2 and 3 are kept open to be adjudicated upon at the appropriate stage.
20. Application stands disposed of. CS(OS) 2283/2013
21. As prayed, let written statement be filed by defendants no.2 and 3 within one week from today. Replication, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter. Parties shall file documents, which are in their possession and power, within the same period.
22. List this matter before Joint Registrar for admission/denial of documents on 9.12.2014.
23. List this matter before Court for framing of issues on 22.1.2015, when parties shall bring suggested issues to Court. G.S.SISTANI, J OCTOBER 30, 2014 msr