Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI, DISTRICT JUDGE-04, EAST
DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
RCA No: 52/2025
CNR No. DLET01-002566-2025
VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA
S/o Sh. Kewal Krishan Sharma
R/o Flat No. F-173-A, Third Floor,
(Left Side), Mangal Bazar,
Near Sethi Dharamshala,
Delhi-110091.
...Appellant
Versus
SMT. SURENDRI DEVI
W/o Sh. Naresh Kumar
R/o Flat No. D-14, Retreat Apartments,
I.P. Extension, Patparganj, East Delhi,
Delhi-110092
…...Respondent
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.04.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SH.
GAURAV SHARMA, LD. CIVIL JUDGE, EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI IN CASE BEARING CS NO. 9978/2016 TITLED AS SURENDRI DEVI Vs.
VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA WHEREBY LD. TRIAL COURT HAS DECREED SUIT
OF THE PLAINTIFF ALLOWING APPLICATION MOVED BY PLAINTIFF U/O XII
RULE 6 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC AND THEREBY DIRECTING
APPELLANT TO VACATE SUIT PREMISES.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 27.05.2025
DATE OF RESERVING FOR JUDGMENT : 12.08.2025
RCA No. 52/25 Page No.1 of 19
VIJAY SHARMA VS. SMT. SURENDRI DEVI
-- 1 of 19 --
DATE OF DECISION : 30.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. In the appeal, it is stated that present appeal is being filed
against judgment and decree dated 23.04.2025 whereby Ld. Trial Court
allowed application filed by respondent/plaintiff U/o 12 Rule 6 r/w Section
151 CPC thereby directing appellant/defendant to vacate suit property.
2. It is stated that respondent/plaintiff filed suit for
ejectment/possession in respect of suit property i.e. Flat No.173-A, Third
Floor (Left Side), Mangal Bazar, Near Sethi Dharamshala, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi-110091 claiming that defendant is tenant in respect of the same.
Tenancy qua suit property was to run for period from 16.07.2014 till
30.06.2015. Suit property was let out to appellant for residential
purposes only and appellant along with his family member was utilizing
the same for residential purpose.
3. It is stated that at the time of letting out suit property,
respondent received sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as security which was
refundable at the time of vacation of suit property by appellant. It is
stated that apart from security amount, appellant was to pay sum of Rs.
4000/- per month as rent of suit property excluding electricity and water
charges.
4. It is stated that on 16.07.2014, on demand of appellant,
respondent paid Rs. 5 lakhs to appellant out of total security amount of
Rs. 7 lakhs and fresh rent agreement dated 16.07.2014 was executed
between parties. As respondent returned sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to appellant
from security amount, with consent of both the parties, rent of suit
property was fixed to be Rs. 10,000/- per month since July 2014.
RCA No. 52/25 Page No.2 of 19
VIJAY SHARMA VS. SMT. SURENDRI DEVI
-- 2 of 19 --
5. It is stated that in June 2015, appellant further requested
respondent to allow him further four months time to vacate suit property
and respondent considering his request, allowed appellant to remain in
possession of suit property till 31.10.2015. It is stated that as per plaint,
appellant had not paid rent from December 2015 to respondent and on
further inspection of suit property, respondent found that appellant had
also damaged paint of rooms of suit property. It also came to knowledge
of respondent that appellant has not paid water bill from very first day of
inception of appellant as tenant.
6. It is stated that respondent is ready to return remaining
security amount after deducting abovementioned dues to appellant when
appellant handover possession of suit property back to respondent.
7. It is stated that respondent does not wish to keep appellant as
tenant any more after 31.12.2015 and tenancy therefore stood
terminated by efflux of time. Legal notice dated 07.12.2015 was given to
appellant to vacate suit property and handover possession of the same
back to respondent on or before 31.12.2015.
8. It is stated that it was further mentioned on the plaint that
possession of appellant after 31.12.2015 is that of a trespasser and
appellant is liable to be ejected. Appellant is stated to be liable to pay
damages/mesne profits @ Rs. 15,000/- per month since 01.01.2016 till
handing over possession of suit property back to respondent.
9. It is stated that it was alleged that on 25.06.2016, it came into
knowledge of respondent that appellant is trying to sub let suit property
but could not succeed due to interference by respondent. It was alleged
that appellant threatened that he will not vacate suit property and that he
will hand over possession of suit property to some local gunda elements
RCA No. 52/25 Page No.3 of 19
VIJAY SHARMA VS. SMT. SURENDRI DEVI
-- 3 of 19 --
and will involve respondent and her family members in false criminal
cases.
10. It is stated that after receiving summons of the suit, appellant
appeared before Ld. Trial Court and filed written statement taking various
preliminary objections. Later on, appellant moved an application U/o 6
Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in written statement along with rent
agreement which appellant failed to file with the written statement.
Application filed by appellant U/o 6 Rule 17 CPC was allowed and
amended written statement with rent agreement from period 2012-13
came on judicial record.
11. It is stated that during course of proceedings, respondent filed
an application U/o 12 Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking recovery of
possession/ejectment of appellant from suit property. Appellant filed
reply to the said application. Ld. Trial Court vide order and decree dated
23.04.2025 allowed the said application of respondent in a mechanical
manner and decreed suit filed by respondent U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC and
passed decree of eviction qua suit property against appellant.
12. Following grounds of appeal have been taken by appellant:-
(a) Because Ld. Trial Court erred in law in passing impugned
decree in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and in
a manner which is contrary to settled law and established legal
proposition.
(b) Because Ld. Trial Court erred in law in holding that there are
clear and unambiguous admission of appellant in his written statement
and in view of the same, a decree U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC can be passed
completely overlooking the fact that neither appellant made any such
admission entitling respondent to seek decree nor any such admission
RCA No. 52/25 Page No.4 of 19
VIJAY SHARMA VS. SMT. SURENDRI DEVI
-- 4 of 19 --
can be inferred from the pleading and impugned judgment and decree is
thus bad on this sole account itself.
(c) Because Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that there are no
oral or written admissions on part of appellant, let alone admission
entitling respondent to seek decree thereon nor it can be said that parties
are “not at issues” and as such application is without any substratum.
Appellant has filed detailed written statement taking various preliminary
objections which goes to root of the case and suit filed by respondent is
not maintainable.
(d) Because Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that suit property
was let out to appellant by respondent in year 2011 with roof rights in
which regard, a rent cum lease agreement was executed between
parties for eleven months and sum of Rs. 7 lakhs was given by appellant
to respondent as security which was refundable at the time of vacation of
suit property. After completion of eleven months, parties again entered
into rent agreement for the period 2012-13 and 2013-14 but at the time
of executing agreement for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14, respondent
obtained signatures of appellant on some blank papers along with copy
of Aadhar Card for notarization of the agreement and appellant in good
faith handed over documents as well as put his signatures on blank
papers. As per agreement executed in year 2012 and 2013, respondent
had to return security amount to appellant at the time of vacating suit
property and it was further agreed as per agreement 2012-13 and 2013-
14 between parties that no amount shall be charged by respondent from
appellant. However, after expiry of last rent agreement, appellant
requested respondent either to execute fresh rent agreement or to return
security amount of Rs. 7 lakhs but respondent refused to execute rent
RCA No. 52/25 Page No.5 of 19
VIJAY SHARMA VS. SMT. SURENDRI DEVI
-- 5 of 19 --
agreement and when appellant asked respondent to return security
amount of Rs. 7 lakhs, then respondent let out suit property to appellant
for further three years on oral terms. No rent agreement as alleged by
respondent dated 16.07.2014 has been executed between parties and
signed by appellant.
(e) Because Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that as per
clause No. 3 of the agreement which was executed in 2012 as well as
2013 between appellant and respondent, it was specifically mentioned in
the same that landlady/owner has already received sum of Rs. 7 lakhs
from lessee at the time when previous rent from lease agreement was
executed between the parties as security which was refundable at the
time when tenant vacates premises after deducting proper dues, if any,
and the same amount was to be treated as security for present
agreement also. It was further agreed that no additional rent amount will
be charged on the abovesaid accommodation except abovesaid amount.
As per agreements, there was no additional rent upon respondent and it
was undertaken by respondent to return security amount of Rs. 7 lakhs
to appellant at the time of vacating suit property and till date, the said
security amount has not been returned by respondent to appellant and
hence, present application is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
(f) Because respondent herself forged and fabricated rent cum
lease agreement of year 2012 wherein after execution, she incorporated
para No. 2 in the rent agreement which was not mentioned in original
agreement.
(g) Because Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that as per
forged agreement of 2012 filed by respondent, she has mentioned rate of
rent to be Rs. 12,000/- per month along with security amount of Rs. 7
RCA No. 52/25 Page No.6 of 19
VIJAY SHARMA VS. SMT. SURENDRI DEVI
-- 6 of 19 --
lakhs and on the other hand, she filed another forged agreement dated
16.07.2014 wherein, she mentions that out of Rs. 7 lakhs, Rs. 5 lakhs
has been returned by respondent to appellant and after returning amount
of Rs. 5 lakhs, appellant was to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- as rent which is
impossible as rate of rent as per forged agreement of 2012 was Rs.
12,000/- and security amount of Rs. 7 lakhs was already deposited with
respondent whereas in the year 2014, rate of rent was reduced from Rs.
12,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- with security amount of Rs. 2 lakhs only.
(h) Because Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that while
deciding application U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC, respondent has cherry picked
portions of written statement to claim out of context that there are
admissions on part of appellant and that parties are not at issue. Even
paras of written statement on basis of which the said application was
filed have not been reproduced in their entirety and only selected portion
has been quoted.
(i) Because Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that
decree U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC can be passed only basis of specific
admissions on part of defendant and as there is no admission, let alone
any clear or unambiguous on part of appellant, no decree was liable to
be passed in favour of respondent.
(j) Because Ld. Trial Court wrongly observed that the said rent
agreement is denied by plaintiff being forged and fabricated and in fact it
was pointed out to the court that para No. 2 therein was altogether
removed as after para No. 1, para No. 4 is written straightaway. In
application moved U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC, respondent herself admitted
execution of agreement dated 02.07.2012 and 29.05.2013 and never
disputed the said rent agreements.
RCA No. 52/25 Page No.7 of 19
VIJAY SHARMA VS. SMT. SURENDRI DEVI
-- 7 of 19 --
(k) Because Ld. Trial Court erred in law while allowing application
U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC filed by respondent as there was specific agreement
between appellant and respondent and on basis of specific contract,
appellant cannot come within purview of tenant and hence, impugned
order is not sustainable.
(l) Because judgment cited by Ld. Trial Court is not applicable in
facts and circumstances of present case as it is very much clear from
both the rent agreements that there are specific conditions agreed to by
appellant and respondent.
(m) Because Ld. Trial Court ignored the fact that at the time of
deciding application U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC, respondent cannot terminate
tenancy of appellant by giving notice U/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act
as in this case, there is specific contract between parties regarding
security amount as well as handing over possession of suit property.
(n) Because Ld. Trial Court ignored arguments of appellant that as
per rent agreements of 2012 and 2013, the agreement between parties
is a kind of usufructuary mortgage and only name of rent cum lease
agreement has been given to the document.
(o) Because Ld. Trial Court erred in law as it observed that
appellant in his written statement stated that he is willing to handover
possession of suit property to plaintiff if entire security amount is returned
back to him. Ld. Trial Court ignored rent agreements of 2012 and 2013
which were placed by appellant in order to prove his contention.
(p) Because Ld. Trial Court erred in law that once appellant is
covered by contracts of 2012 and 2013, respondent cannot terminate
tenancy of appellant by sending notice U/s 106 TPA. Hence, no cause of
action arose in favour of respondent to terminate tenancy of appellant.
RCA No. 52/25 Page No.8 of 19
VIJAY SHARMA VS. SMT. SURENDRI DEVI
-- 8 of 19 --
(q) Because Ld. Trial Court further erred in law in observing that
there are admissions of appellant in his written statement based
whereupon application of respondent U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC was ordered to
be allowed.
(r) Because Ld. Trial Court completely misinterpreted legal
proposition and settled law on the issue and attributed admissions on
part of appellant completely overlooking that neither any admission has
been made by appellant in his written statement nor any such admission
can be attributed to appellant and thus finding of Ld. Trial Court is
erroneous.
(s) Because Ld. Trial Court passed impugned order and decree in
mechanical manner based on conjecture and surmises, presumption and
assumptions and is liable to be set aside.
13. It is prayed to set aside impugned order and decree dated
23.04.2025 whereby Ld. Trial Court allowed application filed by
respondent U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC and ordered appellant to vacate suit
property.
14. Reply to the appeal was filed on behalf of respondent wherein
some preliminary submissions and objections were made/taken by
respondent.
15. It is stated that it is settled legal proposition that object of
Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is to empower court to pronounce judgment on
basis of clear admissions of fact. Such admissions may be found not
only in pleadings but also in other documents on record or in statements
made before court. It is stated that Order 12 Rule 6 CPC may be invoked
by court suo motu or on an application by a party at any stage of the
proceedings even before complete adjudication of entire suit. This
RCA No. 52/25 Page No.9 of 19
VIJAY SHARMA VS. SMT. SURENDRI DEVI
-- 9 of 19 --
provision aims to avoid unnecessary delay when part of claim is already
admitted. The settled object of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is to ensure that
where a clear admission is made by defendant, plaintiff is entitled to
immediate judgment to the extent of such admission, without being
compelled to await final decision of disputed claims. Further, under Rule
6(2), court is mandated to draw decree in terms of such admitted claim
which is enforceable by plaintiff without delay.
16. It is stated that present appeal is not maintainable being filed
in a vexatious manner by attributing baseless allegations against Ld.
Trial Court. It is stated that impugned order was passed after due
consideration and listening to arguments of appellant. Present appeal is
blatant misuse of process of law. All grounds raised by appellant have
been adequately dealt with in the detailed and reasoned order passed by
Ld. Trial Court. Appeal is not maintainable as appellant is approbating
and reprobating simultaneously. On one hand, appellant relies upon rent
cum lease agreement executed between parties whereas he deliberately
misrepresents its terms by falsely claiming rights such as roof rights
which are specifically excluded under the said agreement. Appeal has
been filed without any justifiable cause of action and is a frivolous
attempt to reopen settled issues without legal grounds or new evidence.
It is stated that appeal is devoid of merits and appellant is attempting to
reopen settled issues between parties. Appeal is devoid of merits and
has been filed with sole intention of unlawfully retaining possession of
premises of respondent and to harass and extort money from
respondent. It lacks bonafide.
17. On reply on merits qua grounds of appeal, grounds have been
denied specifically. It is stated that the contentions and submissions
RCA No. 52/25 Page No.10 of 19
VIJAY SHARMA VS. SMT. SURENDRI DEVI
-- 10 of 19 --
setforth in preliminary submissions and preliminary objections be read as
part and parcel of reply on merits. It is stated that appellant has failed to
satisfy Ld. Trial Court and he is not entitled for any indulgence. It is
stated that a person cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold air at once.
On one hand, appellant has relied upon rent cum lease agreement
executed between parties and on the other hand, appellant ignores the
fact that suit property was given to him without any roof rights and
appellant repeatedly has asserted falsely that roof rights were granted. It
is stated that appellant till date has failed to place on record even a
single piece of documentary evidence to substantiate his claim that his
signatures were taken on blank papers and copies of Voter ID and
Aadhar Card were taken for notarizing the agreement. Such defence is
not only baseless but also is unheard of in settled legal practice.
Appellant is an adult, residing with his family and is fully capable of
understanding legal and financial transactions. It is beyond reason that
an educated person would voluntarily handover blank signed documents
and official identification documents without seeking any explanation,
copy or acknowledgment in return. Such narrative being putforth is
nothing but a concocted and desperate afterthought devised solely to
evade binding legal consequences of documents voluntarily executed
and relied upon by appellant himself. Such defence should be outrightly
rejected by the court on account of being devoid of any credibility and
false and misleading.
18. It is stated that original rent agreements are in exclusive
custody of appellant who despite relying upon them has cleverly withheld
the same from being placed on record. It is stated that while appellant
claims that reduction of rent was Rs. 2000/- is completely impossible but
RCA No. 52/25 Page No.11 of 19
VIJAY SHARMA VS. SMT. SURENDRI DEVI
-- 11 of 19 --
he conveniently finds it logical and acceptable that rent fixed in first
registered rent agreement in 2011 @ Rs. 4000/- per month could be
reduced to zero thereafter without any registered instrument, proof of
waiver or written mutual consent which itself exposes hollow and
contradictory stance of appellant. It is nothing but a desperate and
dishonest attempt on part of appellant to not only unjustly retain refunded
security amount of Rs. 5 lakhs but also to unlawfully occupy suit property
located in prime area of Delhi without paying a single rupee towards rent
since 2016. It is stated that as on today, rent to the tune of Rs. 24 lakhs
is outstanding against appellant calculated on reasonable market rate
basis which he admittedly did not pay since 2016. It is stated that an
application U/o 39 Rule 10 CPC for deposit of admitted rent is already
pending adjudication before Ld. Trial Court. Appellant’s evasive and self-
serving assertions deserve to be dismissed outrightly. It is stated that
original rent agreements are in exclusive possession of appellant who
despite placing reliance upon them has deliberately refrained from
producing same on record.
19. It is stated that mere reference to a document during
proceedings or seeking amendment of pleadings does not amount to
admission of its contents or of its genuineness unless specifically an
unequivocally admitted on record. The said observation of Ld. Trial Court
is based on material irregularities and apparent fabrication visible on face
of record which appellant is now attempting to distort. It is stated that it
was respondent who brought this glaring fraud to notice of Ld. Trial Court
during hearing of application U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC by specifically
highlighting tempering in rent agreement and suspicious omission of key
paragraphs, facts that were otherwise cleverly concealed by appellant.
RCA No. 52/25 Page No.12 of 19
VIJAY SHARMA VS. SMT. SURENDRI DEVI
-- 12 of 19 --
Appellant’s claim that respondent ever admitted execution or validity of
alleged rent agreements dated 02.07.2012 and 29.05.2013 is misleading
and an attempt to build false narrative. Respondent has consistently
taken plea that these documents are forged and fabricated and meant to
mislead court and suppress true facts. Respondent reserves right to
initiate appropriate legal proceedings U/s 191, 192, 193, 209 IPC for
perjury and deliberate filing of forged and fabricated documents.
20. It is stated that appellant’s claim that by virtue of these
agreements, he does not even fall under the definition of a tenant is
wholly absurd, legally untenable and reflective of appellant’s desperate
attempt to somehow wriggle out of his admitted liabilities and unlawfully
usurp property of respondent. Such a shifting stand clearly exposes
malafide and dishonest conduct of appellant who having enjoyed
possession of suit property for over a decade without paying rent is now
resorting to contradictory and self defeating arguments. On one hand, he
is seeking protection as tenant under purported rent agreements and on
the other hand, he now claims not to be a tenant at all solely with ulterior
motive of evading rent, retaining possession and attempting to lay false
claim over property of respondent. It is stated that Order 12 Rule 6 CPC
is intended to prevent abuse of judicial process and allows for a decree
on basis of clear admissions. Ld. Trial Court has judiciously applied this
principle and granted relief to respondent. Impugned order thus warrants
no interference.
21. It is stated that the said rent agreements clearly stipulate a
landlord tenant relationship, fix a specific monthly rent, define duration
and other relevant obligations binding appellant and respondent. These
terms constitute a specific contract between the parties and thus case
RCA No. 52/25 Page No.13 of 19
VIJAY SHARMA VS. SMT. SURENDRI DEVI
-- 13 of 19 --
falls squarely within ambit of principles laid down in the judgment cited by
Ld. Trial Court. It is stated that argument of appellant that respondent
cannot terminate tenancy U/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act is
completely untenable. Respondent was well within her rights to seek
relief U/o 12 Rule 6 CPC based on clear admissions and contractual
terms and Ld. Trial Court has committed no error in allowing the same. It
is stated that no defence of usufructuary mortgage was ever raised by
appellant before Ld. Trial Court during adjudication of application U/o 12
Rule 6 CPC. It is false, fabricated and an afterthought and raised for the
first time in the present appeal without any supporting pleading or
evidence on record. Appellant is now desperately attempting to raise
new, inconsistent and legally untenable defences, left right and center in
last ditch effort to somehow unlawfully usurp suit property and evade his
admitted obligations under the law and contractual terms. Therefore,
ground raised in this regard is devoid of merits and deserves to be
rejected outrightly.
22. It is stated that appellant has attempted to rely on two forged
and fabricated rent agreements dated 02.07.2012 and 29.05.2013 but
has failed to produce originals of the alleged agreement despite repeated
reliance. The alleged agreements are riddled with material
inconsistencies including missing paragraphs, tempered numbering and
non-sequential clauses clearly indicating manipulation. Respondent has
raised objections regarding authenticity of these documents and
reserves right to initiate appropriate proceedings for perjury and forgery
under law. Even assuming that agreements were valid (though expressly
denied), the same clearly shows a landlord tenant relationship not any
form of mortgage as claimed by appellant.
RCA No. 52/25 Page No.14 of 19
VIJAY SHARMA VS. SMT. SURENDRI DEVI
-- 14 of 19 --
23. It is prayed to dismiss appeal filed by appellant with exemplary
costs.
24. I have heard arguments addressed by respective counsels and
perused record including TCR, written arguments and judgments filed on
behalf of respondent.
25. Appellant has contended that suit property was let out to
appellant by respondent in year 2011 with roof rights and in this regard,
rent cum lease agreement was executed between parties for period of
eleven months and a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs was given by appellant as
security which was refundable at the time of vacating suit property.
Thereafter, again rent agreements for period 2012-2013 and 2013-2014
were executed but at the time of executing these agreements,
respondent obtained signatures of appellant on some blank papers and
also took copy of Voter Card and Aadhar Card for notarization and
appellant in good faith handed over those documents to respondent and
put his signatures on blank papers. Appellant contended that as per
agreements executed in year 2012 and 2013, respondent/landlord had to
return security amount at the time of vacating suit property and it was
agreed as per agreements 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 between parties
that no amount shall be charged by respondent on appellant. Thereafter,
tenancy was continued on oral basis. Rent agreement dated 16.07.2014
has been disputed by appellant.
26. Rent cum lease agreement of July 2011 has not been disputed
by appellant. Firstly, as per appellant, suit property included roof also but
perusal of rent cum lease cum rent agreement shows that tenancy of suit
property was without roof rights. No doubt taking of refundable security
to the tune of Rs. 7 lakhs without interest by respondent has been
RCA No. 52/25 Page No.15 of 19
VIJAY SHARMA VS. SMT. SURENDRI DEVI
-- 15 of 19 --
mentioned in the same and rent of suit property in the said agreement
has been mentioned to be Rs. 4000/- per month.
27. In copy of rent agreement filed by plaintiff/respondent before
Ld. Trial Court (July 2012), rate of rent of suit property has been
mentioned to be Rs. 12,000/- per month whereas in copy of rent
agreement filed by appellant before Ld. Trial Court, paragraph No. 2
dealing with rate of rent is missing. Again in copy of rent agreement (May
2013) filed by defendant/appellant before Ld. Trial Court, paragraph No.
2 is missing. No doubt there is some tempering of rent cum lease
agreement on part of either of parties. However, it is a matter of trial but
it is not in dispute that appellant is tenant and respondent is landlord.
Rate of rent qua suit property initially agreed to between parties in year
2011 is Rs. 4000/- which was increased to Rs. 12,000/- per month in rent
agreement (July 2012) though the same has been disputed by appellant
but all of a sudden zero rent from Rs. 4000/- seems to be distant
possibility with increasing year to year inflation. Rent @ Rs.4000/- per
month brings out present case out of purview of Delhi Rent Control Act
(Rent of Rs. 4000/- in the year 2011 even not disputed by appellant).
There was no dispute with regard to service of notice qua termination of
tenancy U/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act in view of settled law to the
effect that service of summons in suit for eviction in a suit governed by
provisions of Transfer of Property Act dispenses with service of notice
U/s 106 of TP Act (though formal service of legal notice was disputed by
counsel for appellant).
28. Counsel for appellant argued that in rent agreement dated
16.07.2014 filed by respondent before Ld. Trial Court, respondent has
mentioned that out of total security of Rs. 7 lakhs, security of Rs. 5 lakhs
RCA No. 52/25 Page No.16 of 19
VIJAY SHARMA VS. SMT. SURENDRI DEVI
-- 16 of 19 --
has been returned and rate of rent fixed @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. He
submitted that rate of rent in case of return of security should have
increased from Rs. 12,000/- rather than decreasing to Rs. 10,000/-. He
submitted that all this shows clear cut forgery on part of respondent qua
rent agreement dated 16.07.2014. I am of the view that forgery can only
be established during course of trial and at this stage, it cannot be
commented upon.
29. Appellant has contended that in rent agreements for the year
2012 and 2013, it has been mentioned that no additional rent amount will
be charged on the abovesaid accommodation except abovesaid amount.
Counsel for appellant submitted that this clause in the rent agreements
showed that no rent was to be charged in view of amount of Rs. 7 lakhs
given as security. He submitted that as no rent was liable to be paid, it
cannot be said that present case is governed by provisions of Transfer of
Property Act and hence eviction order qua suit property is bad and is
liable to be set aside.
30. In copy of rent agreement filed by appellant before Ld. Trial
Court for the year 2012, para No. 2 is missing which is present in copy of
rent agreement filed by respondent before Ld. Trial Court as per which
rate of rent is Rs. 12,000/- per month. As already observed, tempering
can be established only during course of trial but it is difficult to assume
that except refundable security, a person will not charge any rent from
tenant when initially rent was being charged in the year 2011. Even if
matter is considered from refundable security point of view which is to be
returned without interest and landlord can be said to be earning interest
on this amount which is to be taken as rent, in the year 2012, prevailing
rate of FDRs were more than 9% at least as per which, rate of rent of suit
RCA No. 52/25 Page No.17 of 19
VIJAY SHARMA VS. SMT. SURENDRI DEVI
-- 17 of 19 --
property per month comes out to be more than Rs.3500/- which brings
out present case out of purview of Delhi Rent Control Act. Impugned
order thus cannot be set aside on this ground.
31. Appellant contended that as per rent agreements of year 2012
and 2013, a kind of usufructuary mortgage has been created though
document is given nomenclature of rent cum lease agreement.
32. It is well settled that when contents of document are plain and
clear, no other interpretation can be assigned to it (Section 92 of Indian
Evidence Act). When initial relationship between parties has not been
disputed by appellant to be that of landlord and tenant, how come in
subsequent agreements furthering the said relationship can be said to
have been converted into usufructuary mortgage. This contention of
appellant is without merits and hence rejected.
33. Appellant has contended that Ld. Trial Court erred in observing
that appellant mention in his written statement that he is willing to
handover possession of suit property to plaintiff if entire security amount
is returned back to him, however, Ld. Trial Court ignored two rent
agreements for the year 2012 and 2013.
34. Respondent filed judgment in case titled as “Uberoisons
(Machines) Ltd. Vs. Samtel Color Ltd. 105 (2003) DLT 383” wherein
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held that “Now the question arises
whether the tenant could have retained the possession of the premises
without paying the rent thereof on account of non-refund of security
amount by the plaintiff. The answer is emphatic ‘no’. The tenant has an
independent remedy to recover the security but in no way can retain the
possession of the premises on the plea that until and unless security is
RCA No. 52/25 Page No.18 of 19
VIJAY SHARMA VS. SMT. SURENDRI DEVI
-- 18 of 19 --
refunded, possession will not be handed over.”
35. In view of my earlier made discussion and law as cited above,
I am of the view that this contention of appellant is without merits and
cannot be sustained.
36. As per Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, court can either on its own or on
application pass judgment in view of admissions of facts made by parties
in their pleadings or otherwise, orally or in writing at any stage of the suit.
37. During course of arguments before this court, appellant
submitted that he is ready to vacate suit property in case respondent
returns his security amount to the tune of Rs. 7 lakhs. When landlord
tenant relationship is not disputed, case is out of purview of provisions of
Delhi Rent Control Act as discussed above, tenant cannot be permitted
to retain possession of suit property till his security is refunded
particularly when no counter claim in this regard has been filed by tenant.
There does not appear to be any illegality in impugned order and decree
passed by Ld. Trial court. Appeal filed by appellant is thus without merits
and is accordingly be dismissed.
38. Let copy of this judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court with TCR.
Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court
today on 30.08.2025 (Sonu Agnihotri)
DJ-04, East District,
Karkardooma Courts/Delhi
RCA No. 52/25 Page No.19 of 19
VIJAY SHARMA VS. SMT. SURENDRI DEVI
-- 19 of 19 --