Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH MALIK, DISTRICT JUDGE:
CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MCA 51/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sh. Atul Gupta
S/o Sh. Badri Prasad Gupta
R/o 13-A/4, Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi-110060
Mob. No: 9310156168
Also at:
Shop No. 14, Vidya Market,
3401, Peepal Mahadev,
Hauz Qazi, Delhi-110006
….......Appellant
VERSUS
Sh. Suresh Kumar Bansal
S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash Bansal,
R/o N-103, Upper Ground Floor,
Greater Kailash, Part-I,
New Delhi.
........Respondent
Other Details :
Date of Institution : 07.10.2023
Date of Reserving Judgment : 15.02.2024
Date of Judgment : 20.04.2024
Decision : dismissed
MCA DJ 51/23
ATUL GUPTA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANSAL Page No. 1 of 8
-- 1 of 8 --
APPEAL UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 READ WITH
SECTION 96 & 107 OF CPC FILED BY THE
APPELLANT/DEFENDANT AGAINST THE IMPUGNED
FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
28.08.2023 PASSED BY SH. ANURAG CHHABRA, CJ-03,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI IN CS
SCJ NO. 2038/2022.
JUDGMENT:-
1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment
and decree dated 28.08.2023, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was
decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The parties to the present appeal
have been referred to herein as landlord and tenant.
2. By way of the said judgment and decree, the possession of
the tenanted premises has been ordered to be given to the landlord
alongwith recovery of arrears of rent w.e.f 01.03.2022 to 31.08.2022
at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per month, totaling Rs. 54,000/-. The plaintiff
filed the suit for possession, permanent injunction, arrears of rent and
damages based on the landlord and tenant relationship. The rent of the
tenanted premises was shown as Rs. 9,000/-.
3. The tenant stated that the plaintiff has played fraud upon
him by getting him the rent agreement dated 10.08.2021 before sub-
registrar in favour of the plaintiff.
4. The tenant submits that the actual rent of the suit property
was Rs. 1200/- per month and he took the suit property on rent from
MCA DJ 51/23
ATUL GUPTA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANSAL Page No. 2 of 8
-- 2 of 8 --
its original owner in the year 1991 by paying Rs. 2,25,000/- as
Pagdi/security amount.
5. It is submitted that in the month of August 2021, the
landlord approached the tenant and told him that his entire property
including the suit property was to be assessed by the assessment
department. For that purpose, he needed the registered rent agreement
and on the good faith he gave his consent to execute the new Rent
Agreement dated 05.08.2021.
6. It is submitted that the landlord took him under his
confidence and got the rent agreement executed at the rate of rent of
Rs. 9,000/- per month. It is averred that the landlord assured the
tenant that new rent agreement would be used for the purpose of
assessment department only and the plaintiff would return the excess
amount of rent after deducting the actual rent of Rs. 1200/- per month.
With these averments, the tenant filed his written statement seeking
dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff.
7. Ld. Trial Court held that there is a categorical admission
of the landlord-tenant relationship.
8. In the concluding paragraph, Ld. Trial Court held that the
rent of the suit property was more than Rs. 3500/- per month as per
the rent agreement dated 05.08.2021. Therefore, the tenanted property
does not fall within the ambit of Delhi Rent Control Act. It is a well
settled law that institution of a suit is itself a notice for determination
MCA DJ 51/23
ATUL GUPTA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANSAL Page No. 3 of 8
-- 3 of 8 --
of tenancy. With these observations, the decree for recovery of
possession of the tenanted premises alongwith the decree of arrears of
rent of Rs. 54,000/- was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendant.
9. Ld. counsel for the tenant submitted that the decree on the
admission ought not to be passed without analysing the defense of the
defendant.
10. It is submitted on behalf of the tenant that mere admission
of landlord and the tenant relationship is not sufficient to pass a decree
on admission. He has relied upon the judgment in the matter of Karan
Kapoor vs. Madhuri Kumar, (2022) 10 SCC 496, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the grant of relief under Order 12 Rule 6 is
discretionary in nature. There should be specific, clear and categorical
admission of facts and document on record. When there is need to
decide the justifiability of defense by full fledged trial, there is no
need to pass the decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
11. In the matter of Hari Steel and General Industries Ltd. &
Anr. Vs. Daljeet Singh and Ors., AIR 2019, Supreme Court 4796, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the defendants though entering into
agreement with plaintiffs but claiming that such agreement is based
upon fabricated documents. Therefore, mere admission of entering
into agreement cannot be termed as categorical and unconditional
admission for delivering judgment on admission.
MCA DJ 51/23
ATUL GUPTA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANSAL Page No. 4 of 8
-- 4 of 8 --
12. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the landlord submitted
that Ld. Trial Court has rightly decided the suit as the relationship of
the landlord and the tenant has been clearly admitted. He has relied
upon the judgment in the matter of Payal Vision Ltd. Vs. Radhika
Chaudhary (VII) 2015 SNT 303 and Pawan Kumar Gupta and & Anr
286 [2022] DLT 573.
Court’s observations:-
13. In the present case, the plaintiff has relied upon the
registered rent agreement executed on 05.08.2021 in respect of the
tenanted premises. The rent agreement was for a period of 3 years,
commencing from 05.08.2021. The rate of rent was Rs. 9000/- per
month.
14. The defendant claims that he did not voluntarily execute
the said rent agreement as the same was got executed by the plaintiff
by playing fraud upon him. It is argued that earlier, he was paying the
rent of Rs. 1200/- per month and why did he enter into an agreement
of Rs. 9000/- per month, thereby waiving off his protection of tenancy
under Delhi Control Act, 1958.
15. At this juncture, it needs to be noted here that the tenant
made monthly payment of rent at the rate of Rs.9,000/- from
05.08.2021 till February 2022. He has taken the plea that he had
executed the rent agreement on asking of the plaintiff, who
fraudulently told him to get the new rent agreement registered for the
purpose of assessment purpose only. Here, the moot question is
MCA DJ 51/23
ATUL GUPTA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANSAL Page No. 5 of 8
-- 5 of 8 --
whether the plea of fraud taken by the defendant needs a full-fledged
trial ?
16. In this respect, it is observed here that the defendant has
admitted the execution of the rent agreement, but has taken the plea of
fraud. The pleadings of the defendant indicate that he was very much
aware that he was executing the rent agreement. He was equally aware
about the enhanced rate of rent as Rs. 9,000/- per month. By making
the payment of enhanced rent of Rs. 9000/- per month, he was
waiving off his protection provided by the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Often, there may be thousand reasons for him to enter into the new
rent agreement.
17. He has not denied that he was not aware about the
contents or the character of the document which he signed. No one is
supposed to surrender one’s protected tenancy right under DRC Act
merely on asking of the plaintiff that he requires a registered rent
agreement with the monthly rent of Rs.9,000/- to show the same to the
assessment officer. His camaraderie with the landlord for unknown
reasons can not be termed as a fraud. There appears to be no
fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the document and
fraudulent misrepresentation as to the contents thereof inasmuch as
the tenant was aware about the contents and the character of the rent
agreement. A cautious approach needs to be adopted while dealing
with such pleas of fraud, when the things do not go between the
parties as per their plan. When he voluntarily signed the rent
agreement fully knowing the contents and the character of the rent
MCA DJ 51/23
ATUL GUPTA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANSAL Page No. 6 of 8
-- 6 of 8 --
agreement, he cannot be said to have been influenced by the landlord
for his signatures on the rent agreement.
18. In Shri Vimal Khanna Vs. Shri Kishan Chand Khanna
DRJ 116 (2010) 251, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court inter alia held if otherwise found entitled to a decree on
admissions, the plaintiff cannot be deprived thereof by astute drafting
of the written statement or by taking pleas therein which have no legs
to stand upon.
19. Similarly, in PPA Impex Private Ltd. Vs. Mangal Sain
Mittal 166 (2010) DLT 54 the principal laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of T. Arivandanda Vs. TV Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC
467 was extended and it was inter alia held that a defense which is
implausible and on a meaning, but not formal reading, is manifestly
vexatious and meritless, clever drafting should not be allowed to
create an illusion and such defenses should not be needlessly
permitted to go to trial.
20. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the present
tenancy is not protected under Rent Control Act as rate of rent is more
than Rs.3500/-. The relationship between the landlord and the tenant
has been clearly admitted. The lease was terminated vide notice dated
09.07.2022 for non payment of monthly rent. As a result, the Ld. Trial
Court has rightly decreed the suit under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
21. Accordingly, there is no illegality or infirmity in the
MCA DJ 51/23
ATUL GUPTA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANSAL Page No. 7 of 8
-- 7 of 8 --
judgment dated 28.08.2023. With these observations, the appeal stands
dismissed.
22. Let the copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial
Court alongwith the Trial Court Record.
23. Appeal file be consigned to the Record Room as per rules
after compliance of necessary legal formalities.
Announced in open Court
Dated: 20.04.2024
(RAJESH MALIK)
District Judge (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
MCA DJ 51/23
ATUL GUPTA vs. SURESH KUMAR BANSAL Page No. 8 of 8
-- 8 of 8 --