Final Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: RCA No. 191/24 Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra Vs. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma Page 1 of 13
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAGUN SHARMA
DISTRICT JUDGE-12 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RCA DJ No. 191/24
CNR No. DLCT01-0199002024
MEMO OF PARTIES
Mr . Pawan Kumar Mishra,
Proprietor – Pragyan Enterprise,
06, Gandhi Market,
Minto Road,
Delhi-110002.
……..Appellant
Versus
Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma,
S/o Mr. Hari Shankar,
R/o House no. 5,
Prem Shanti Kunj,
Civil Line,
New Delhi. ……Respondent
Date of filing : 19.12.2024
Date on which judgment was reserved : 14.07.2025
Date of Decision : 12.08.2025
Decision : Dismissed.
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
CODE.
JUDGMENT
(1) Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose of the Appeal
filed under Section 96 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC), assailing the judgment and decree dated
22.10.2024 passed by the Court of Ld. Civil Judge, Central, Tis
-- 1 of 13 --
RCA No. 191/24 Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra Vs. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma Page 2 of 13
Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS SCJ No. 1828/2023 titled as “Ashok
Kumar Vs. Pawan Kumar Mishra”, whereby the Ld. Trial Court
allowed the Plaintiff’s application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC
and partially decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff and against
the Defendant.
(2) The delay in filing the present Appeal was condoned by
this Court vide order dated 15.04.2025 and the Application under
Section 151 CPC was accordingly disposed off.
(3) For the sake of clarity and consistency, the Appellant herein
who was the Defendant before the learned Trial Court, and the
Respondent herein, who was the Plaintiff before the learned Trial
Court, shall be referred to as ‘Defendant’ and ‘Plaintiff’
respectively throughout this judgment.
Background of the case and proceedings before the Ld. Trial
Court.
(4) The Plaintiff had filed a suit seeking possession, permanent
injunction, and recovery of arrears of rent against the Defendant.
As per the Plaintiff, tenancy qua the ground floor of double story
property bearing no. 6, Gandhi Market, area measuring 900 sq.
feet, Mirdard Road, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 (hereinafter
referred to as the “suit property”) commenced from 11.05.2020 at
a monthly rent of Rs. 5,200/-, which was valid till 10.04.2021.
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant failed to pay any rent
during the said tenancy period.
-- 2 of 13 --
RCA No. 191/24 Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra Vs. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma Page 3 of 13
(5) In the Written Statement, the Defendant refuted the allega-
tions and asserted that the present status of Defendant is co-ten-
ant along with his son, Mr. Udit Mishra, who became the tenant
and is in possession of the suit premises since 2008-2009. It is
further averred that initially the suit property was offered by the
Plaintiff to Mr. Udit Mishra due to a financial liability of Rs.
9,00,000/- owed by the Plaintiff to him, and also considering the
old friendship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The
Plaintiff allegedly proposed to sell the suit property to the Defen-
dant’s son for a total consideration of Rs. 60,00,000/-, but since
the Defendant and his son did not have sufficient funds, the
Plaintiff, being an old friend, agreed to accept the amount in in-
stallments. In that case, the total consideration was revised to Rs.
90,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 80,00,000/- has allegedly already
been paid by the Defendant and his son. It is further averred that,
for the purpose of compliance with government regulations, cer-
tain rent agreements were executed merely as a formality. The
Defendant also stated that he entered the suit property as a tenant
in the year 2017 and had been running his own business from the
premises since 2013. It is further claimed that both he and his
son, Mr. Udit Mishra, possess supporting documents such as
GST registrations, Voter ID cards, CHA licenses, etc., substanti-
ating their possession and business activity from the suit
property.
(6) The Defendant also stated that the Plaintiff attempted to
dispossess them forcibly on multiple occasions, including alleged
violent incidents on 19.06.2023 and 22.07.2023, which led to
-- 3 of 13 --
RCA No. 191/24 Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra Vs. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma Page 4 of 13
registration of FIR No. 175/2023. The Defendant contended that
the electricity supply was disconnected illegally and that two
suits are pending between the parties regarding protection from
dispossession and restoration of electricity connection.
(7) The Plaintiff had instituted the subject suit for eviction,
recovery, and injunction on 18.09.2023. The Trial Court, while
considering the written statement, passed a partial decree for
possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, holding that the
Defendant’s admission in paragraph 34 of the written statement
constituted a clear and unambiguous acknowledgment of
tenancy.
Grounds of Challenge in the Appeal
(8) The Defendant has challenged the impugned judgment on
the following primary grounds:
1. The Ld. Trial Court erred in construing paragraph 34 of
the written statement as a clear, unambiguous, and
unconditional admission of tenancy. The admission was
qualified by assertions of an oral agreement to sell,
substantial payments made, and the rent agreements being
entered into as a formality.
2. The judgment failed to appreciate that the Defendant
raised triable issues, particularly concerning ownership
claims, long-standing possession, and alleged harassment
by the Plaintiff.
-- 4 of 13 --
RCA No. 191/24 Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra Vs. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma Page 5 of 13
3. The Ld. Trial Court ignored documentary evidence, such
as bank statements showing Rs. 6,00,000/- transferred to
the Plaintiff in 2019, which contradicted the Plaintiff’s
plea that the Defendant had not paid any rent.
4. The suit was summarily decreed without allowing the
Defendant an opportunity to lead evidence and without
adjudicating on substantial factual disputes.
Respondent’s Reply to Grounds of Appeal
(9) The Plaintiff has filed a detailed reply denying all grounds
of appeal and submitted that the Ld. Trial Court passed a well-
reasoned judgment, after finding a clear jural relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties and termination of
tenancy by efflux of time. The Plaintiff relies on the Hon’ble
Supreme Court judgment in “Payal Vision Ltd. v. Radhika
Choudhary” (Civil Appeal No. 6734/2012)” to support the
proposition that for possession, existence of tenancy and
termination thereof are sufficient, both of which stand admitted
in the written statement. It is submitted that rent was not paid,
and the Defendant is in illegal occupation since 10.04.2021. The
Plaintiff claims that the Defendant and his son have fabricated
documents to illegally grab the suit property. It is contended that
the Defendant’s own suit for injunction admits the factum of
tenancy.
Applications During Appeal
-- 5 of 13 --
RCA No. 191/24 Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra Vs. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma Page 6 of 13
(10) During pendency of the appeal, the Defendant filed two
applications before this Court , one under Order VI Rule 17 CPC,
seeking amendment of the written statement, and another under
Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, seeking permission to place additional
evidence on record. These applications were heard and dismissed
vide order dated 14.07.2025 as being devoid of merit and not
fulfilling the legal prerequisites for amendment or leading
additional evidence at the appellate stage.
(11) Arguments were heard. Appellant/Defendant has relied upon
two judgments titled as S. M. Asif Vs. Virendra Kumar Bajaj,
AIR 2015 SC 3678 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court and Karan
Kapoor Vs. Madhuri Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 4526/2022 passed
by Hon’ble Apex Court. This Court has also perused the entire
record of appeal including Written Submissions/citations as well
as the Ld. Trial court record and considered the rival contentions
made before the court.
JUDICIAL ANALYSIS AND REASONING
(12) The sole question for determination before this Court is that
whether the decree of possession of the suit property, granted in
favour of Plaintiff , under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, was rightly
passed by the Ld. Trial Court, based on unequivocal admission of
the Defendant. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to refer
the relevant provisions of law i.e. Order XII Rule 6 of CPC
and Section 53 of the Bhartiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam, which
provides as under: -
ORDER XII RULE 6 :-
-- 6 of 13 --
RCA No. 191/24 Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra Vs. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma Page 7 of 13
6. Judgment on admissions- (1) Where admissions
of fact have been made either in the pleading or
otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court
may at any stage of the suit, either on the
application of any party or of its own motion and
without waiting for the determination of any other
question between the parties, make such order or
give such judgment as it may think fit, having
regard to such admissions.
(2). Whenever a judgment is pronounced under
sub-rule (1), a decree shall be drawn up in
accordance with the judgment, and the decree shall
bear the date on which the judgment was
pronounced.
Section 53 of the Bhartiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam.
"53. Facts admitted need not be proved-No
fact need to be proved in any proceeding
which the parties thereto or their agents agree
to admit at the hearing, or which, before the
hearing, they agree to admit by any writing
under their hands, or which by any rule of
pleading in force at the time they are deemed
to have admitted by their pleadings:
Provided that the Court may, in its discretion,
require the facts admitted to be proved
otherwise than by such admissions."
(13) The object of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, is to enable the
parties to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the
relief, Plaintiff is entitled to on the basis of admission by the
Defendant. In case of "
Charanjit Lal Mehra and Ors. vs Smt.
Kamal Saroj Mahajan and Anr." AIR 2005 SC 2765 , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908, is enacted for the purpose to expedite the
-- 7 of 13 --
RCA No. 191/24 Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra Vs. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma Page 8 of 13
trials and if there is any admission on behalf of the Defendants or
an admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of
the case without any dispute, then in such a case, in order to
expedite and dispose of the matter, such admission can be acted
upon.
(14) It has been further laid down by Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in “
P.P.A. Impex Pvt. Ltd vs Mangal Sain Mittal, 166
(2010) DLT 84” that as regards Order XII Rule 6 CPC is
concerned, the Supreme Court has recommended resort to this
provision to bring a quick end wherever a vexatious and false
defence has been presented". The approach to be taken while
dealing with an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908, should be akin to what has been
enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “
Mechalac
Engineers & Manufactures Vs. Basic Equipment Corporation
Digitally (1976) 4 SCC 687” in the context of Order XXXVII
CPC with regard to granting of leave to defend in a summary
suit. If the defence amounts to moonshine, it should be
summarily dismissed by not granting leave to defend and by
decreeing the suit forthwith.
(15) It is trite law that in a suit for possession filed by a
landlord against the tenant, following three ingredients have to be
established by the Plaintiff: -
(a) there exists a landlord tenant relationship between the
Plaintiff and Defendant
(b) rent of the premises being more than 3,500/- so as to
exclude the applicability of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent
Control Act.
-- 8 of 13 --
RCA No. 191/24 Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra Vs. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma Page 9 of 13
(c) termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the transfer of
property Act.
(16) Now reverting to the case in hand, landlord-tenant
relationship is not in dispute, rent of property being more than
Rs. 3500/- has also not been disputed by Defendant in the
Written Statement or the present Appeal. Thus, the provisions
of Delhi Rent Control Act, are not attracted in this case. As far as
termination of tenancy is concerned, Plaintiff had served legal
notice dated 05.08.2023, upon the Defendant. Plaintiff has placed
on record the Legal Notice dated 05.08.2023 as well as the postal
receipt. The said fact is not denied by the Defendant and it is
stated in the written statement that the issuance and service of
legal notice is a “matter of record”. Even otherwise, the service
of summons with the plaint itself amounts to notice under
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as per
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in “
Nopany
Investments (P) Ltd vs. Santokh Singh (HUF), 146 (2008) DLT
217 (SC)”.
(17) It is categorically admitted by the Defendant in the written
statement in Para 34 that his “present status” in the suit property
is that of a “tenant”. Accordingly, the existence of a landlord-
tenant relationship is an undisputed fact. The Defendant also
asserts that he is a proposed buyer of the suit property, having
allegedly paid a sum of Rs 80,00,000/- to the Plaintiff towards
the purchase consideration. However, this plea is entirely
unsubstantiated and inconsistent with the Defendant’s own
categorical admission of his tenancy.
-- 9 of 13 --
RCA No. 191/24 Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra Vs. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma Page 10 of 13
(18) Significantly, the Defendant has failed to place on record
any registered document that may confer any legal right, title, or
interest upon him with respect to the suit property. The alleged
payment of Rs.80,00,000/- is not supported by a single credible
document. The Defendant has argued that he has placed on
record Statement of record evidencing the payment of
Rs.6,00,000/- to the Plaintiff. However, no document has been
filed by the Defendant to demonstrate that the said amount was
paid towards the purchase of the suit property, or that it was
made pursuant to any legally binding agreement to sell. There is
no written acknowledgment from the Plaintiff, no
contemporaneous communication reflecting the Plaintiff’s
consent to sell the property for any consideration. In the absence
of such material, the Defendant’s plea remains unsubstantiated in
law.
(19) Even assuming for the sake of argument that Rs.
6,00,000/- was paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, the law is
clear that no title or interest in immovable property can be
created or transferred without a registered instrument (as per
Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 54 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882). Thus, no legal right or
protection arises in favour of the Defendant merely on the basis
of an unsubstantiated financial transaction.
(20) A bare perusal of the written statement filed before the
Ld. Trial Court on 08.11.2023 shows that while it was stated
therein that proof of payment of Rs. 80,00,000/- would be filed in
-- 10 of 13 --
RCA No. 191/24 Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra Vs. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma Page 11 of 13
the due course, however, no such proof has been placed on
record till date. A party cannot be permitted to approbate and
reprobate, on the one hand, admitting to tenancy and, on the
other, asserting an unsupported claim of purchase. This duality of
claims undermines the credibility of his defence and appears to
be an afterthought, taken as a shield to resist eviction after the
termination of his tenancy. The Defendant has also placed
reliance on documents such as voter ID cards, CHA licenses, and
other identification records. However, none of these documents,
whether individually or collectively, confer any legal title qua the
suit property in favour of the Defendant as these documents
merely reflect his residence or professional affiliation and do not
elevate his possession to lawful ownership.
(21) The tenancy stands terminated by service of legal notice as
well as by service of summons in the suit, therefore, the
Defendant has no right to retain the possession qua the suit
property in the absence of a registered sale deed / any conclusive
proof of transfer of ownership.
(22) Defendant has placed reliance upon S.M. Asif Vs. Virendra
Kumar Bajaj, AIR 2015 SC 3678 and Karan Kapoor Vs. Madhuri
Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 4526 of 2022. However, the facts of the
aforesaid judgments are materially different, as both involved
executed agreements to sell, which are admittedly absent in the
present matter. Hence, the said judgments do not support the
Defendant’s plea.
-- 11 of 13 --
RCA No. 191/24 Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra Vs. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma Page 12 of 13
(23) It is also argued on behalf of the Defendant that since the
Plaintiff’s licence had expired, he has no right, title or interest in
the suit property, while simultaneously claiming possession as a
prospective purchaser on the basis of alleged payment to and
purchase from the plaintiff. Such mutually destructive pleas are
impermissible, as a party cannot affirm a transaction for one
purpose and deny it for another. Further, the plea is barred by
Section 122 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (Section 116 of the
Indian Evidence Act), which estops a tenant from denying the
title of the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy. The
record shows that the defendant admits his present status of a
tenant and entered possession through the plaintiff, and having
so entered, he is precluded from disputing the plaintiff’s title
during the continuance of such possession.
Conclusion:-
(24) In the light of aforesaid discussion and findings, and the
settled legal position, governing the scope and applicability
of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, this Court finds no infirmity or
illegality in the impugned order/decree dated 22.10.2024 passed
by the Ld. Trial Court. The Ld. Trial Court rightly concluded that
the essential ingredients for passing a judgment on admission
were satisfied, and accordingly, passed a decree of possession of
the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the
appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits, and disposed
of.
-- 12 of 13 --
RCA No. 191/24 Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra Vs. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma Page 13 of 13
(25) A copy of this judgment alongwith the trial court record
be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court for information.
(26) Appeal file be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Announced in the open
Court on 12.08.2025
(SHAGUN SHARMA)
District Judge-12, Central Distt.
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
12.08.2025
Certified that this judgment contains 13 pages and each page
bears my signatures.
(SHAGUN SHARMA)
District Judge-12, Central Distt.
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
12.08.2025
-- 13 of 13 --