Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. GAURAV DAHIYA , CIVIL JUDGE-06,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ No. 2005/2025
CNR No. DLCT03-006797-2025
Kishan Kumar Sharma .....Plaintiff
Versus
Prabhat Gupta .....Defendant
ORDER ON APPLICATION U/O XII RULE 6 CPC
1. Vide the present order, application U/O XII Rule 6 r/w
Section 151 CPC moved on behalf of the plaintiff shall be disposed
off.
2. It is stated on behalf of the plaintiff that plaintiff is the
owner of property bearing no. 87-A, First Floor, Bagichi Madho
Dass, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 consisting one room set on
first floor (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') vide registered
General Power of Attorney, registered Agreement to Sell and
purchase, Special Power of Attorney, Indemnity Bond, affidavit,
receipt, possession letter, Will etc. all dated 12.01.1998 and
defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit property on a monthly
rent of Rs.5,000/- for a period of 11 months w.e.f 31.08.2020 by an
oral agreement excluding electricity charges with a condition that
the said rent shall be increased to the tune of 10% after expiry of the
CS SCJ No. 2005/25 Kishan Kumar Sharma Vs. Prabhat Gupta pg. no. 1/6
-- 1 of 6 --
11 months and subject to renewal of tenancy. It is stated that
defendant has not paid rent to the plaintiff since August, 2023 and
defendant is liable to pay rent for the period from August, 2023 to
September, 2025 amounting to Rs.1,43,000/- including electricity
charges of Rs.500/- per month and is also liable to pay interest @
10% per annum. It is contended that defendant is habitual defaulter
of payment of rent and plaintiff has terminated the tenancy vide
legal notice dated 31.07.2025 which was served upon the defendant
on 04.08.2025. It is averred that plaintiff is also entitled to
compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- for the period from
20.08.2025 to 20.09.2025 and further compensation onwards till
handing over of the possession of the suit property. It is argued that
the defendant has categorically admitted the oral rent agreement
dated 31.08.2020 and the relationship of landlord and tenant and has
further admitted receipt of the legal notice. It is prayed that the
present application be allowed and a decree of possession of the suit
property be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant, a decree for recovery of Rs.1,43,000/- (including
electricity charges of Rs.500/- per month) as arrears of rent
alongwith interest @ 10% per annum and decree of compensation at
the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month alongwith costs of the suit be
passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
3. The defendant on his part choose not to file any written
reply to the application and arguments were addressed straightaway.
It was argued that there was no tenancy and the defendant was
inducted by the plaintiff in the suit property on the basis of an oral
CS SCJ No. 2005/25 Kishan Kumar Sharma Vs. Prabhat Gupta pg. no. 2/6
-- 2 of 6 --
agreement by which Rs.3,00,000/- were deposited by the defendant
with the plaintiff with the condition that the plaintiff can get the suit
property vacated only after returning the security deposit. It was
further argued that the property was sealed by MCD from before,
and this fact was not brought to the knowledge of the defendant. It
was further submitted that the application is not maintainable and
deserves to be dismissed.
4. Arguments on the application have been heard. Record
has been perused.
5. Order XII Rule 6 CPC provides as follows:
“Where admissions of fact have been made either in
the plading 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
regards to such admissions.”
6. It has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the
case titled as
'Delhi Jal Board Vs. Surendra P. Malik 104 (2003)
DLT 151 (DB)' that in the pleadings or otherwise or orally or in
writing that the admissions must be clear and unequivocal,
unconditional and unambiguous. Further, admissions need not be
made specifically or expressly and could be constructive admission
as well. The object of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is to enable the party to
obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief relating
to the admissions of the defendant, to which the plaintiff is entitled.
CS SCJ No. 2005/25 Kishan Kumar Sharma Vs. Prabhat Gupta pg. no. 3/6
-- 3 of 6 --
7. It is settled law that in suit for possession by landlord
against tenant, landlord has to prove following three ingredients:
(a) Existence of landlord and tenant relationship.
(b) The rent was more than Rs.3,500/- per month i.e. the
tenancy was beyond the ambit of the Delhi Rent
Control Act.
(c) The tenancy has been validly terminated.
8. It has been prayed on behalf of the plaintiff that a
decree of possession, recovery of arrears of rent and arrears of
damages/compensation be passed in favour of the plaintiff. It is the
case of the plaintiff that he is the owner and landlord of the suit
property and the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit
property vide rent agreement dated 31.08.2020 for a monthly rent of
Rs.5,000/-. The defendant in his written statement has denied the
oral rent agreement as averred by the plaintiff in his plaint.
However, a careful perusal of the contents of the written statement
would show that the defendant has admitted that he was inducted
into the suit property by the plaintiff. The ownership of the plaintiff
in the suit property and his capacity to sue as a landlord has also not
been challenged. The only contention of the defendant is that he was
inducted in the suit property on the basis of security amount. Thus,
the position which emerges from the averments and contentions of
the defendant is that he is not claiming any independent right, title
or interest in the suit property and is merely not vacating the suit
CS SCJ No. 2005/25 Kishan Kumar Sharma Vs. Prabhat Gupta pg. no. 4/6
-- 4 of 6 --
property because his security amount is not being returned by the
plaintiff.
9. In the considered opinion of this court, the fact of
return of the security amount can be adjudicated by way of separate
proceedings as it gives rise to a separate cause of action in favour of
the defendant. Thus, there is clear existence of landlord and tenant
relationship between the parties.
10. The plaintiff has averred that he had terminated the
tenancy of the defendant in the suit property by way of a legal
notice. The defendant has denied the receiving of legal notice in his
written statement however, the postal receipt and tracking report are
not disputed meaning, thereby that the legal notice terminating the
tenancy of the defendant in the suit property was delivered to the
defendant at the suit property itself. The termination of tenancy
through a written legal notice is a valid mode of termination and
even otherwise, it is a settled law that service of summons of the suit
on the defendant may also be deemed as necessarily notice for
termination of tenancy.
11. The defendant has merely denied the amount of rent
mentioned by the plaintiff, however, he has nowhere claimed
protection under The Delhi Rent Control Act. Thus, it is also clear
that the tenancy was beyond the ambit of the said act.
12. In the case in hand, it emerges that there was landlord
tenant relationship between the parties which was not covered by
the provisions of The Delhi Rent Control Act, and the tenancy was
CS SCJ No. 2005/25 Kishan Kumar Sharma Vs. Prabhat Gupta pg. no. 5/6
-- 5 of 6 --
legally and validly terminated by the plaintiff. In such a scenario,
the status of the defendant in the suit property is of an unauthorized
occupant, and he has no rights to continue in the suit property,
thereby entitling the plaintiff to possession of the suit property.
13. As far as further reliefs apart from possession are
concerned, the court is of the view that recovery of arrears of rent
and arrears of damages/ compensation require adjudication on
merits and therefore, no relief for those aspects is made out at this
stage.
14. In view of facts and circumstances of the case,
arguments led and in view of the above discussion, suit of the
plaintiff is partly decreed and plaintiff is entitled to recovery of
possession of suit property i.e. property bearing no. 87-A, First
Floor, Bagichi Madho Dass, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006
consisting one room set on first floor and defendant is directed to
handover possession of the suit property within fifteen days from
today.
15. It is also made clear that decree of possession is being
granted to the plaintiff against the defendant only and it is subject to
any subsisting sealing order passed by civil authorities.
Application is accordingly disposed off.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in the court
on 15.09.2026.
(Gaurav Dahiya)
Civil Judge-06, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS SCJ No. 2005/25 Kishan Kumar Sharma Vs. Prabhat Gupta pg. no. 6/6
-- 6 of 6 --