Ved Prakash v. Neeraj Saxena

15. It is submitted that the issues in the aforesaid suit are of triable nature and as per the law, it is the discretion of the Court to pass a judgment or a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, and the learned Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion by observing that the disputed documents cannot be relied upon to decide a suit under the said provision.

16. It is submitted that the above provision aims to prevent a full-fledged trial where admitted facts are sufficient to pass a judgment. In the present case, the learned Trial Court, after a thorough consideration of the pleadings and documents of the respective parties, judiciously exercised its discretion, finding no clear admission of facts by the respondent. Therefore, the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC was rightly dismissed.

17. It is further submitted that the application filed by the petitioner is based on a purported recording, the transcript of which has been placed on record, however, the authenticity and genuineness of the said recording has not yet been established, and the respondent has disputed the validity of the purported call recording as the same warrants trial.

18. It is submitted that in his written statement, the respondent had clearly denied admitting that the petitioner holds absolute ownership of the subject property. It was also denied that the petitioner had purchased the subject property. Moreover, it is the case of the respondent before the learned Trial Court that there exists no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent.

19. It is submitted that it was mutually agreed between the parties that at the relevant time, when the subject property was being sold, it was purchased by the petition as the respondent did not have sufficient money. It is further submitted that the total amount paid to purchase the said property was Rs. 32 Lakhs out of which the respondent paid Rs. 16 Lakhs and the rest of the amount was paid by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the respondent had specifically pleaded in his written statement that the petitioner had promised to get a sale deed registered in the name of the respondent and to transfer the property in the name of the respondent once he returns the amount to the petitioner paid by him during initial purchase. Upon full payment of Rs. 16 Lakhs, the respondent requested the petitioner to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent and his mother, however, instead of complying; the petitioner filed the aforesaid frivolous suit.

20. It is further submitted that the respondent has already filed a suit against the petitioner, seeking a declaration that the rent agreement is null and void, and the said suit is currently pending before the Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

21. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed on behalf of the respondent that the instant petition may be dismissed being devoid of any merits.

22. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

23. It is the case of the petitioner that the learned Trial Court failed to properly assess the facts and circumstances and has passed the impugned order without due consideration or application of judicial mind. The petitioner contended that the learned Court below overlooked key admissions made by the respondent, particularly regarding the existence of a registered rent agreement which clearly established the petitioner's ownership of the subject property.

24. It has been further contended by the petitioner that both the telephonic conversation and the documentary evidence confirmed the landlord-tenant relationship, and thus, the learned Trial Court erred in not invoking Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC to pass a judgment based on these admissions. Additionally, the petitioners emphasized that the learned Trial Court ignored settled legal principles, citing legal precedents which hold that even vague or evasive denials in pleadings can amount to constructive admissions under the said provision.

25. In rival submissions, the learned counsel for respondent argued that the impugned order was passed in accordance with the settled position of law after due consideration of the entire facts. The respondent relied on Supreme Court's ruling in Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar (Supra) to highlight that the power under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is discretionary and should only be invoked in the presence of clear and specific admissions, which he claims are absent in this case.

26. It has been further submitted that the respondent clearly denied the petitioner's ownership of the property and any landlord-tenant relationship, asserting that the petitioner's application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC was not maintainable. Additionally, the respondent contended that they had already paid a substantial portion of the sale consideration and the petitioner's suit was filed with frivolous intent. Further, respondent also pointed out that they had filed a separate suit challenging the validity of the rent agreement, which was still pending.

27. Therefore, the limited question for adjudication before this Court is to decide whether the learned Trial Court erred in not considering the admission of the respondent in terms of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

28. At this stage, it is apposite to peruse the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court. The relevant paragraphs of the same are reproduced herein below: “..The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking eviction from shop bearing no. 2807, Ground Floor, admeasuring 5.37 sq. Mt. situated in Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi 110006, of which he is the absolute owner, and recovery of arrears of rent, damages, and mesne profit, and also for further damages against the defendant to whom the plaintiff let out the property vide Rent Agreement dated 07.02.2018 for a period of 36 months. The defendant failed to honour the terms of the agreement, and hence the captioned suit was instituted by the plaintiff. It is argued that, as per the defendant, vide his written statement dated 22.10.2021 and also on a phone call with the plaintiff, he has made certain clear and unequivocal admissions. Upon the perusal of the transcript of the call recording (Annexure-A), it can be made evident that the defendant was in tenancy of the plaintiff's property and has an outstanding liability of rent towards the tenancy of the said property. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that a rent agreement dated 17.02.2018, which was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, binds the defendant by its terms. As per clause-1 of the rent agreement, the tenancy of the defendant stands terminated on 31.10.2010, and the defendant is requested to vacate the property and hand over the peaceful possession of the property to the plaintiff. It is further alleged that it has been unequivocally admitted by the defendants that the property stands registered in the name of the plaintiff, and the defendant entered into a rent agreement dated 07.02.2018 with the plaintiff with respect to the property and was also liable to pay the plaintiff in view of the said rent agreement. Plaintiff, under the application under Order 39 Rule 10 of CPC, seeks interim relief from the court in the nature of directions to the defendant to deposit arrears of rent of Rs. 1,06,461/- per month w.e.f 15.03.2021, i.e., the date of the institution of the titled suit, till the vacation of the property by the defendant with the court or to pay the same to the plaintiff. In support of his application under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC, the plaintiff has relied upon the following judgments: (1) Vijaya Myne Vs. Satya Bhushan Kaura, 2007 SCC Online Del 828: [(2007) 142 DLT 483 (DB) of Delhi High Court]; (2) National Textile Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ashval Vaderaa, [2010 SCC Online Del 544]; and (3) Geeta Vs. Mohd. Raza and Anr., [C.R.P 175/2019, 2019 SCC Online Del 1385]. In their reply, the defendant submits that the entire edifice of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is a purported recording between them, the transcript of which has been placed on record as annexure-A. It would be incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the authenticity and genuineness of the records. It is further submitted that before such a report is received, no further proceedings can occur in the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. In support of his averments, the defendant has mentioned the judgment titled "Kalabharati Advertising V Hemant Vimalnath Narichania [(2010) 9 SCC 437]." It is further averred that in case the forensic result would be in favour of the plaintiff, then only would the stage come for filing a reply to the said application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. The defendant has argued that the contention of the plaintiff in its application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is not maintainable, inasmuch as the alleged ground was not pleaded in the original suit and neither has the defendant admitted the same. Hence, the present application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC be dismissed with exemplary cost under the provisions of the CPC. Arguments heard. Considered. In order to invoke the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC, the admission should be clear, unequivocal, unambiguous, and unconditional in respect of the claim of the plaintiff. In the present matter, the plaintiff has relied upon a phone call conversation between himself and the defendant, which is in the form of a document. In the judgment titled as CREF Finance Ltd. V. Shantiti Homes Pvt. Ltd., [AIR 2006 Karn 54], it is held that when an application is filed under Order XII, Rule 6, objections are filed by respondents denying in toto, the said documents would partake the character of a disputed document. Under Section 18 of the Evidence Act, an opportunity is to be given to the respondents to explain the said admissions were made. However, this is a matter to be decided during the course of trial and not at a stage when the application is being considered under Order XII, Rule 6 of the CPC. In concurrence with the defendants' arguments and in view of the above observation, applications u/o 12 Rule 6 of CPC and

29. Upon perusal of the aforementioned excerpts of the impugned order, it is made out that the learned Trial Court dealt with the issue of eviction of respondent from the subject property and recovery of arrears of rent, damages, and mesne profits.

30. The petitioner had filed applications under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC and Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the CPC, thereby, seeking judgment on the basis of admissions made by the respondent. The petitioner had relied upon a transcript of a phone conversation and written admissions of the respondent in his written statement. However, the respondent disputed the authenticity of the transcript and contested the maintainability of the petitioner’s application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

31. While passing the impugned order, the learned Trial Court observed that provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC require clear and unequivocal admissions for summary judgment. Since the petitioner’s evidence, particularly the transcript of the phone conversation was contested and the authenticity of the transcript was in dispute, the learned Trial Court held that no judgment can be passed under the said provision at that stage as the disputed documents should be addressed during trial for determination of rights of the parties. As a result, the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC was dismissed and the matter was fixed for further proceedings.

32. At this juncture, this Court deems imperative to delve into the extent and scope of the Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

33. By virtue of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, the Courts have the power to pass a judgment concerning any submission made by the parties at any point of the proceedings, be it oral or written. An admission is a common law principle and the end goal of the same is to enable a party to swiftly secure judgment when the defendant makes an admission in the pleadings or in another manner.

34. The above stated principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Charanjit Lal Mehra v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan, (2005) 11 SCC 279, wherein it was observed that Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC was implemented with the goal of accelerating adjudication of trials. In order to expedite the processes, the concerned case may be decided if the defendant makes any admission or if any admission is inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any disagreement.

35. A three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.M. Asif v. Virendar Kumar Bajaj, (2015) 9 SCC 287 made certain observations about the objective as well as the legislative intent behind the incorporation of the Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC and held as under: “..9. The words in Order XII Rule 6 CPC “may” and “make such order…” show that the power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Judgment on admission is not a matter of right and rather is a matter of discretion of the Court. Where the defendants have raised objections which go to the root of the case, it would not be appropriate to exercise the discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The said rule is an enabling provision which confers discretion on the Court in delivering a quick judgment on admission and to the extent of the claim admitted by one of the parties of his opponent’s claim. In the suit for eviction filed by the respondent-landlord, appellant-tenant has admitted the relationship of tenancy and the period of lease agreement; but resisted respondent-plaintiff’s claim by setting up a defence plea of agreement to sale and that he paid an advance of Rs.82.50 lakhs, which of course is stoutly denied by the respondent-landlord. The appellant- defendant also filed the Suit for Specific Performance, which of course is contested by the respondent-landlord. When such issues arising between the parties ought to be decided, mere admission of relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be said to be an unequivocal admission to decree the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC…”

36. Therefore, in terms of the settled position of law, the power of Courts under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is discretionary and if the Court concerned is of the view that the suit involves issues of triable nature that warrants trial, leading of evidence and examination of parties, the Court has the power to dismiss the said application and hear the suit on merits.

37. There is no dispute about the principle of law that if there is a clear, unambiguous and unequivocal admission, a judgment can be rendered having regard to such admission. Whether or not there is a clear admission by any party is essentially a question of fact and adjudication of the same depends on the facts and circumstances of each case as there is no straight jacket formula to decide the application filed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

38. Now adverting to the facts of the present petition, it is contented by the petitioner that the learned Trial Court grossly overlooked the admissions made by the respondent with regard to the existence of a landlord – tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent in his written statement as well as in the phone conversation which has been produced in the form of a transcript.

39. This Court has meticulously examined the material available on record and it is pertinent to note here that the respondent has denied the legality of the aforementioned rent agreement as well as the ownership of the petitioner over the subject property. In light of the same, it is important to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the written statement of the respondent for the adjudication of the issue at hand. The relevant extracts are as under: “..6. That after the death of the father of the Plaintiff (Maternal Grandfather of the Defendant), in the year 2009, with hardly any support any quarter, the Defendant wanted to take a shop on rent/ pagrhi, but did not have enough resources. Therefore, the Defendant approached the Plaintiff for help and the Plaintiff, who was well respected in the Market, also invested some money and took a shop of rent under pagri system from Kuldeep Singh, S/o Shri Gurbachan Singh, who was the tenant of Dhanuka Trust. The amount paid was Rs. 32,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Only), out of which, the Plaintiff paid half and the balance half was paid by the Defendant. The Defendant invested the money from his savings and also by selling the jewellery of his Mother that was gifted to her by her father and in-laws during marriage and some df' which had been purchased by the father of the Defendant during other time The Defendant also had a few (not much) jewellery, which he sold. The S hop Bearing No. 2807, Ground floor Kinari Bazaar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi -110006 was taken on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- (Rupees Seventy Five Only). The Parehi (S lip) was issued in the name of the Plaintiff, as he was respected in the area and the Defendant had full faith in him. The Plaintiff had promised to get a Sale Deed registered in the name of the Defendant at the appropriate time and the Defended had also promised the Plaintiff that he will return the share of the Plaintiff in installments. The Defendant started his business from the Shop Bearing No. 2807, Ground floor Kinari bazaar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi -110006. ***

9. That in the year 2015-2016 Ms Dhanuka Trust was liquidating its properties and hence the Defendant was offered to purchase the above said shop. The Defendant discussed his plan to purchase the above mentioned Shop with his family members. All the family members agreed to purchase the shop but not in the name of the Defendant, because of his relationship with a girl from another religion, as they were apprehensive of future repercussions of his action and as his action may lead suffer huge loss to his own family so everyone decided that the property is to be purchased in the name of plaintiff as he is well wisher of the Defendant and his family members. Hence, the Sale Deed was executed in the name of Plaintiff in the year 2016. Another more important reason as to why the Plaintiff agreed that the Sale Deed could be executed in the name of the Plaintiff was that he had not been able to repay the Rs 16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Only) to the Plaintiff in full. Further, the Plaintiff told the Defendant that the Sale Deed initially had to be registered in the name of the Parchi Holder.

10. That after execution of the Sale Deed everything was going on fine between the Defendant and the Plaintiff. In the year 2018, the Plaintiff approached the Defendant and asked to execute a rent agreement, as the Plaintiff said that he needed to show some white money in his account. The Defendant did not smell the foul intention of the Plaintiff and agreed to execute the rent agreement. The arrangement was that the Defendant would pay a regular amount, which will adjusted in. the final consideration amount of the said property.

11. That in January, 2020, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to transfer the property i.e. Shop Bearing No. 2807, Ground floor Kinari Bazaar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 in joint name of the Defendant and his mother, as he had already paid off the consideration money, to which Plaintiff said he will look into it. Thereafter he used to ignore the request of the defendant on one pretext or another…”

40. In the aforementioned context, the petitioner has relied heavily on paragraph no. 9 of the respondent’s written statement, wherein it is stated by the respondent that a sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner invoked the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC to obtain a judgment on the basis of this purported admission.

41. However, upon a careful and holistic reading of paragraph nos. 6 to 10 of the written statement filed by the respondent in the original suit, it becomes evident that there is absence of any clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal admission of the ownership of the plaintiff, nor does it establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and there is no unequivocal admission on behalf of the respondent.

42. The premise of the same is based upon the fact that even though the respondent has stated in his written statement that the sale deed of the subject property was executed in favour of the petitioner, however, the respondent has also stated that he has paid/returned the amount of the sale consideration qua the subject property to the petitioner on the pretext that the petitioner had earlier promised to transfer the ownership in the name of the respondent and his mother.

43. Additionally, the respondent has also filed another civil suit seeking declaration of the aforementioned rent agreement as null and void, which is pending for adjudication before the Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Thus, in light of the said ambiguity and disputed question of facts, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has been unable to make out a case for judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

44. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC allows the Court to pass a judgment when there is a clear and unequivocal admission by the defendant. However, it is well settled position of law that an order under the said provision cannot be passed if there exists any dispute regarding material facts.

45. In the instant case, while paragraph no. 9 mentions the execution of a sale deed, the preceding and succeeding paragraphs make it abundantly clear that the respondent/defendant has disputed the ownership of the plaintiff/petitioner over the subject property.

46. In paragraph no. 6 of the written statement, the respondent explains the circumstances under which the shop was taken on rent under a "pagri" system, and in paragraph no. 10, it is further elaborated that the respondent and petitioner had a mutual understanding regarding the repayment of money and future transfer of ownership. These facts, when taken together, create ambiguity and raise questions regarding the true nature of the transaction between the parties. Furthermore, the respondent has consistently disputed the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, as detailed in various parts of the written statement, including paragraph NO. 10. Thus, the overall reading of the written statement reveals that there are substantial disputes between the parties, including, the relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant.

47. In S.M. Asif v. Virendar Kumar Bajaj (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that when the defendant raises objections that go to the root of the case, discretion under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC should not be exercised in favour of the party seeking judgment on purported admission.

48. In the instant case as well, both the ownership of the subject property and the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship are central to the dispute and the same has been pleaded by the respondent in his written statement where he has categorically denied these claims, and any reliance by the petitioner on certain lines of paragraph no. 9 of the written statement is misplaced and legally untenable to seek judgment under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

49. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot rely on some isolated statements without considering the entire context, particularly since paragraph nos. 6 to 10 clearly dispute petitioner’s ownership and the alleged landlord-tenant relationship. Therefore, such objections strike at the core of the matter, creating ambiguity and warrants trial.

50. Now adverting to the other contention of the petitioner that the respondent has admitted the landlord-tenant relationship during a phone conversation and to support the said argument, the petitioner has placed on record the transcript of the said phone conversation which the learned Trial Court rejected under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC since the respondent had disputed the same.

51. This Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court correctly observed that under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, admissions must be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal to justify passing a summary judgment. In the case at hand, the petitioner's reliance on the call recording and its transcript was disputed, and the authenticity of the same was challenged by the respondent. The learned Trial Court found that such contested evidence could not form the basis of an admission under Order XII Rule 6. This Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court did not commit any errors of law in stating that the transcript of the phone conversation between the parties, since disputed, cannot be taken as basis of admission to pass a judgment/decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

52. It is a settled principle of law that while adjudicating a petition under Section 115 of the CPC, this Court has limited powers and only those matters are to be allowed under the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, wherein, there has been an irregular exercise, or non – exercise, or the illegal assumption of the jurisdiction by the Court below. The mere fact that a decision of the Trial Court is erroneous due to a question of fact or of law does not amount to any illegality or a material irregularity.

53. Therefore, the observations made by this Court in the preceding paragraphs make it clear that there are no errors of jurisdiction, and thus, this Court finds no force in the arguments advanced by the petitioner. In view of the same, it is held that the learned Trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with the law and since the petitioner has been unable to make out a case for grant of relief of revision of the impugned order under Section 115 of the CPC, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.

54. In view of the foregoing discussions on facts and law, the impugned order dated 26th February 2022, passed by learned ADJ, Tis Hazari Court (Central), Delhi, in Civil Suit bearing CS No. 249/2021 is, hereby, upheld.

55. It may be noted that nothing expressed hereinabove shall be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.

56. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed along with the pending applications, if any.

57. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 18, 2024 NA/RYP/MK