Final Order 15

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. AKSHAY PRAKASH
CIVIL JUDGE-04, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
13.07.2026
CS SCJ 1411/2024
IN THE MATER OF:
Neelam Sharma and Anr. 	…Plaintiffs
Versus
Ravi Kapoor 	…Defendant
1. 	The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs seeking recovery of
possession of the suit property, arrears of rent, mesne profits and permanent
injunction.
2. 	The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that they are the landlords of the suit
property bearing no. D-1688, Second Floor, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, and the
defendant is the tenant thereof. It is averred that the defendant approached
the plaintiffs for taking the suit property on rent and the plaintiffs agreed to
let out the same at a monthly rent of Rs. 7,000/-. Accordingly, a rent
agreement dated 06.08.2021 was executed between the parties for a period
of 11 months. Upon expiry of the said agreement on 06.07.2022, no fresh
rent agreement was executed; however, the defendant continued to occupy
the suit property as a tenant. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that the
defendant last paid rent for the month of February, 2023, and has been in
default in payment of rent with effect from March, 2023. Despite repeated
requests, the defendant neither cleared the outstanding rent nor vacated the
suit property, thereby compelling the plaintiffs to institute the present suit.
3. 	Upon institution of the suit, summons were issued to the defendant. The
summons were duly served upon the defendant on 30.09.2024. However,
CS SCJ 1411/2024 	Neelam Sharma Vs Ravi Kapoor 	Page 	of	1 	5
-- 1 of 5 --
despite service, the defendant failed to file a written statement within the
prescribed period of limitation. Consequently, vide order dated 11.02.2025,
the defendant was proceeded ex parte.
4. 	Thereafter, the defendant was examined under Order X of The Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. During such examination, the defendant unequivocally
admitted that he was a tenant in respect of the suit property under the
plaintiffs at a monthly rent of Rs. 7,000/-. He also expressed his willingness
to vacate the suit property within six months.
5. 	Subsequently, the matter was referred to mediation, where the parties arrived
at a settlement on 19.02.2025. In terms of the said settlement, the defendant
handed over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the
plaintiffs on 26.08.2025. However, the defendant failed to comply with the
terms of the settlement insofar as payment of arrears of rent was concerned.
Thereafter, 	on 	06.06.2026, 	the 	defendant 	submitted 	that 	he 	wished 	to
renegotiate the settlement and requested that the matter be referred to
mediation once again. The said request was opposed by the plaintiffs.
Considering that the matter had already been amicably settled once through
mediation and that the defendant had partly acted upon the settlement by
vacating the suit property, this Court was not inclined to refer the matter for
mediation afresh.
6. 	At this stage, the only surviving dispute pertains to the claim of the plaintiffs
for arrears of rent. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to examine whether a
judgment can be passed on the basis of the admissions made by the
defendant.
7. 	At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the power under Order XII Rule 6 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be exercised by the Court suo motu,
and the filing of a formal application by any party is not a condition
CS SCJ 1411/2024 	Neelam Sharma Vs Ravi Kapoor 	Page 	of	2 	5
-- 2 of 5 --
precedent for invoking the said provision. The same is manifestly clear on a
bare perusal the said provision. Relevant part of the said provision is quoted
below:-
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.
8. 	It is settled position of law is that the jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6
CPC can be exercised only where the admission is clear, unequivocal and
unambiguous. The same has been held in Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel
Ltd., (2011) 15 SCC 273 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 376 : 2011 SCC OnLine SC
890 at page 276. Relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below:-
“11. It is true that a judgment can be given on an “admission” contained
in the minutes of a meeting. But the admission should be categorical. It
should be a conscious and deliberate act of the party making it, showing
an intention to be bound by it. Order 12 Rule 6 being an enabling
provision, it is neither mandatory nor peremptory but discretionary. The
court, on examination of the facts and circumstances, has to exercise its
judicial discretion, keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is a
judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the
defendant, 	by 	way 	of 	an 	appeal 	on 	merits. 	Therefore 	unless 	the
admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional, the discretion of
the Court should not be exercised to deny the valuable right of a
defendant to contest the claim. In short the discretion should be used
only when there is a clear “admission” which can be acted upon. (See
also Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India [(2000) 7
SCC 120] , Karam Kapahi v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust [(2010)
4 SCC 753 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 262] and Jeevan Diesels and Electricals
Ltd. v. Jasbir Singh Chadha [(2010) 6 SCC 601 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 745]
.) … … …”
9. 	In the present case, the defendant, during his examination under Order X
CPC, 	unequivocally 	admitted 	the 	existence 	of 	the 	landlord-tenant
CS SCJ 1411/2024 	Neelam Sharma Vs Ravi Kapoor 	Page 	of	3 	5
-- 3 of 5 --
relationship between the parties as well as the agreed monthly rent of Rs.
7,000/-. Furthermore, in the mediation settlement dated 19.02.2025, the
defendant expressly acknowledged that he had not paid rent with effect from
March, 2023. The said settlement was not a mere proposal but was acted
upon by the parties. In pursuance thereof, the defendant delivered vacant
possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs on 26.08.2025, which fact
also stands recorded in the order dated 26.08.2025.
10. Merely because the defendant subsequently failed to honour the settlement
in respect of payment of arrears of rent or sought to renegotiate the terms
thereof would not obliterate the admissions already made by him. The
admissions contained in the mediation settlement, particularly those which
have 	been 	partly 	acted 	upon 	by 	the 	parties, 	continue 	to 	retain 	their
evidentiary value and can be relied upon for the purpose of exercising
jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. This Court, therefore, finds no
legal impediment in placing reliance upon the admissions made by the
defendant in the mediation settlement dated 19.02.2025, especially when the
defendant himself has acted upon the settlement by handing over possession
of 	the 	suit 	property 	on 	the 	date 	agreed 	in 	the 	mediation 	settlement
agreement.
11. In view of the categorical admissions made by the defendant regarding (i)
the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship, (ii) the agreed rate of rent
of Rs. 7,000/- per month, and (iii) the fact that rent remained unpaid from
March, 2023, no triable issue survives for adjudication insofar as the claim
for arrears of rent is concerned. The material facts necessary for granting the
said relief stand admitted and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served
by relegating the parties to a full-fledged trial on an issue that is no longer in
controversy.
CS SCJ 1411/2024 	Neelam Sharma Vs Ravi Kapoor 	Page 	of	4 	5
-- 4 of 5 --
12. At this stage it is also pertinent to mention here that the object of judgment
on admission is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment to the extent of
relief admitted by the defendant. The same has been held in Uttam Singh
Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India, (2000) 7 SCC 120 : (2000) 102
Comp Cas 118 : 2000 SCC OnLine SC 1134 at page 127. Relevant part of
the said judgment is quoted below:-
“12. As to the object of Order 12 Rule 6, we need not say anything more
than what the legislature itself has said when the said provision came to
be amended. In the Objects and Reasons set out while amending the said
Rule, 	it 	is 	stated 	that 	“where 	a 	claim 	is 	admitted, 	the 	court 	has
jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on
admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a
speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to
the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled”. We should not
unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a
party to obtain speedy judgment. Where the other party has made a plain
admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also
wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is
impossible for the party making such admission to succeed.”
13. Accordingly, the suit is decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to the extent of
the claim for arrears of rent. The defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiffs
arrears of rent at the agreed rate of Rs. 7,000/- per month for the period
commencing from March, 2023 till 26.08.2025, the date on which vacant
possession of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiffs.
14. Let a decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
15. Perusal of the record shows that no further relief remains for adjudication in
the present matter. Accordingly, file be consigned to the Record Room after
due compliance.
(Akshay Prakash)
Civil Judge-04, Central,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
13.07.2026
CS SCJ 1411/2024 	Neelam Sharma Vs Ravi Kapoor 	Page 	of	5 	5
-- 5 of 5 --