Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 16
CS 645/25
Kailash Bhasin Vs. Neha Sharma
12.01.2026
Present : Sh. Mehul Jain, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. Narender Singh, Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
As per the report of the Ahlmad, the written statement has been
filed on behalf of the defendants.
Today, the rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, and a
copy of the same has been duly supplied to the defendants.
The present suit has been instituted for eviction of the tenant and
for other consequential reliefs. In the written statement, the defendants have
admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant as well as the existence of a
registered Lease Deed dated 17.01.2024. As per the said Lease Deed, the
duration of the tenancy was for a period of two years, i.e., from 15.10.2023 to
14.10.2025.
The only substantive defence raised by the defendants in the
written statement is that the plaintiffs intend to enhance the rent at an exorbitant
rate and, for that reason, are seeking eviction of the defendants. The defendants
have also averred the medical history and medical problems of defendant no. 1
and the father of defendant no. 2. It is further stated that the defendants intend
to vacate the suit property and are in the process of searching for alternative
accommodation. Allegations of violation of the terms of the Lease Deed by the
plaintiffs have also been made.
It is further averred that an amount of approximately 51,000/-	₹
was paid as advance and that an amount of 60,000/- is already lying with the	₹
plaintiffs. The exact wording contained in paragraph no. 5 of the preliminary
objections of the written statement is reproduced as under:
-- 1 of 3 --
“…..Around Rs. 51,000/- as advance and an amount of
Rs. 60,000/-, total amount Rs. 1,11,000/- is already
with them…..”
The Learned Counsel for the defendants was specifically asked as
to why the suit should not be partly decreed on the basis of admissions made in
the written statement under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In
response, the Learned Counsel for the defendants reiterated the averments made
in the written statement, namely medical emergencies and alleged enhancement
of rent at exorbitant rates.
From the above discussion and a perusal of the written statement, it
is evident that there is no denial of the tenancy, the registered Lease Deed, or
the period of lease. There is also no legal ground disclosed in the written
statement which would prevent passing of a decree for possession and
mandatory injunction on the basis of admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
The plea regarding payment of advance amounts is a matter which can be
adjudicated during trial while considering the remaining reliefs and does not bar
the passing of a decree for possession.
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs
are entitled to a decree of possession and mandatory injunction on the basis of
admissions made by the defendants in the written statement.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the suit of the plaintiffs is
partly decreed under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC on admissions, in the
following terms:
a) The plaintiffs are held entitled to recover possession of
the suit property, i.e., Flat No. 95B, First Floor, Pocket B,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi–110091.
b) The defendants, their agents, or any persons claiming
through or under them are restrained from alienating,
-- 2 of 3 --
selling, subletting, or creating any third-party interest in
respect of the suit premises.
The decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Put up for framing of issues for Trial of remaining reliefs on
18.02.2026.
(Vikas Garg)
DJ-05/East/KKD
Delhi/12.01.2026
-- 3 of 3 --