Interim Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. HEM SINGH, DISTRICT JUDGE-01, (EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 526/24
CNR No. DLET010053042024
In the matter of :-
Smt. Rama Trikha
W/o Shri Lajpat Rai Trikha
R/o 59, Maedow Road, Edision,
New Jersey 08817, USA.
Through Her Special Attorney
Sh. Pankaj Jaitly
S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma
R/o Flat No. 75, Plot No. 36,
I.P. Extension, Delhi-110092
…….. Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Madhur Bhatnagar
S/o Shri B.B. Bhatnagar
2. Smt. Gayatri Bhatnagar
W/o Sh. Madhur Bhatnagar
Both R/o
Flat no. 90-A,
Ajanta Apartment, Plot No. 36,
I.P. Extension, Delhi-110092
.........Defendants
Dated: 21.07.2026
CS No. 526/24
Smt. Rama Trikha (Through SPA Pankaj Jaitly) Vs. Madhur Bhatnagar
Page no. 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
ORDER
1. By way of this order, I shall decide an application under Order XII
Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed on
behalf of the plaintiff seeking a decree of possession in respect of the suit
property i.e, Flat No. 90-A, Anjanta Apartments, Plot No. 36, I.P. Extension,
Delhi-110092 on the basis of admissions made by the defendants.
2. Briefly stated, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit for
possession, recovery of arrears of rent, damages/mesne profits and permanent
injunction, pleading that the plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the suit
property and had let out the same to defendant No.1 vide a lease deed dated
29.02.2020 for a period of eleven months commencing from 01.03.2020 at a
monthly rent of Rs.12,500/-. It is averred that the defendants committed
default in payment of rent and, consequently, the tenancy was terminated by
legal notice dated 14.08.2024. Since the defendants failed to vacate the suit
premises despite termination of tenancy, the present suit came to be filed.
3. Defendant No.1, in his written statement, has not disputed the
relationship of landlord and tenant with the plaintiff. He has also not denied
the execution of the lease deed dated 29.02.2020. His defence is only that he
vacated the suit premises in March, 2023 and that defendant No.2 has been
residing therein thereafter.
4. Defendant No.2 has filed a separate written statement. Though she
has denied any direct landlord-tenant relationship with the plaintiff, she has
nowhere disputed that the premises had been taken on rent by her husband,
i.e., defendant No.1. She has also not disclosed any independent right, title or
interest under which she claims to continue in possession of the suit property.
CS No. 526/24
Smt. Rama Trikha (Through SPA Pankaj Jaitly) Vs. Madhur Bhatnagar
Page no. 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
5. It is not her case that she is the owner of the property or that she is
occupying the premises under any independent tenancy or any other legal
right. Her possession is admittedly traceable only through defendant No.1.
6. The scope of Order XII Rule 6 CPC is well settled. A judgment on
admissions can be passed where the admissions are clear, unequivocal and
sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to the relief claimed and no triable issue
survives in respect of such relief. In a suit for recovery of possession
instituted by a landlord against a tenant not protected under any rent control
legislation, once the relationship of landlord and tenant and the determination
of tenancy stand admitted, ordinarily the landlord becomes entitled to a
decree of possession.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as Payal
Vision Ltd. Vs. Radhika Choudhary (2012) 11 Supreme Court Cases 405
has held that:-
“7. In a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant
whose tenancy is not protected under the provisions of the Rent
Control Act, all that is required to be established by the
plaintiffs landlord is the existence of the jural relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties and the termination of
the tenancy either by lapse of time or by notice served by the
landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. So
long as these two aspects are not in dispute the court can pass a
decree in terms of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC."
8. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled as Atma Ram
Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pal Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2002 (62) DRJ 623
held that in order to succeed in the suit for possession, the plaintiffs has to
CS No. 526/24
Smt. Rama Trikha (Through SPA Pankaj Jaitly) Vs. Madhur Bhatnagar
Page no. 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
prove the following ingredients:-
a) That there is relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties.
b) Tenancy in respect of the premises has come to an end
either by efflux of time or by a valid notice sent by the
plaintiffs to the defendant under Section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act and duly served on the defendant.
c) The rent of the premises in question is more than
Rs.3,500/- per month and therefore, there is no protection of
the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act available to the tenant.
9. In the present case, the execution of the lease deed by defendant
No.1 and the relationship of landlord and tenant are not in dispute. The lease
period has admittedly expired by efflux of time and, in any event, the tenancy
stood terminated by the legal notice dated 14.08.2024. Thus, the defendants
have no subsisting legal right to continue in possession of the suit property.
10. The plea of defendant No.2 denying the relationship of landlord
and tenant does not raise any triable issue. She has not disclosed the source of
her possession except that she is residing in the premises as the wife of
defendant No.1. It is settled proposition of law that a person claiming
possession through a tenant cannot claim a better right than the tenant
himself. In the absence of any independent legal right pleaded by defendant
No.2, her denial is merely evasive and does not constitute a bona fide
defence. By raising such a moonshine defence, the defendant no. 2 cannot be
permitted to defeat the legitimate claim of the plaintiff.
11. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the essential ingredients for
CS No. 526/24
Smt. Rama Trikha (Through SPA Pankaj Jaitly) Vs. Madhur Bhatnagar
Page no. 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
exercise of powers under Order XII Rule 6 CPC stand fulfilled and no
purpose would be served by relegating the parties to trial insofar as the relief
of possession is concerned.
12. Consequently, the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is
allowed. A decree of possession is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and
against both the defendants in respect of the suit property Flat No. 90-A,
Anjanta Apartments, Plot No. 36, I.P. Extension, Delhi-110092. Defendant
no. 1 has already took the stand that he has vacated the suit property in
March, 2023. Therefore, defendant no. 2 is directed to hand over vacant and
peaceful physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
The suit shall, however, continue with respect to the remaining
reliefs.
Decree sheet for the relief of possession be prepared accordingly.
Announced in the open
Court on 21.07.2026 (Hem Singh)
District Judge-01
(East)/KKD/Delhi
CS No. 526/24
Smt. Rama Trikha (Through SPA Pankaj Jaitly) Vs. Madhur Bhatnagar
Page no. 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --