Interim Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF ACJ-CUM-CCJ-CUM-ARC (EAST) KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Nitish Kumar Sharma
CNR NO.DLET030003582025
CS SCJ No. 231/25
In the matter of:
SHRI CHARANJEET ANAND
S/O LATE SHRI RAMDITTA ANAND
R/O A-59, IST FLOOR PREET VIHAR
NIRMAN VIHAR, DELHI-110092
….........Plaintiff
Versus
SMT. SIMRAN CHOUDHRY
W/O SHRI JABBAR ALI
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:
K-14, OLD GOBIND PURA EXTENSION,
DELHI-110051
............Defendant
Order On Application U/O XII Rule 6 CPC
1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking a decree on admissions in a
suit for recovery of possession, directing the defendant to vacate the suit property i.e.
Ground Floor of property bearing no. K-14, Old Gobind Pura Extension, Delhi-
110051 (hereinafter referred to as “Suit Property”), and for arrears of rents, directing
the defendant to an amount of Rs. 37,500/- (rent from 01.12.2024 to 28.02.2025 @
CS SCJ No.231/2025 Charanjeet Anand vs Simran Choudhary Page No. 1/ 7
-- 1 of 7 --
Rs.12,500/-p.m.) along with the interest @ 15% per annum. & Water and
maintenance charges @ Rs. 300/- per month from August 2024 to February 2025,
amounting to Rs. 2,100/-.
2. Facts of the plaint
(a) It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner and landlord of the
entire property bearing No. K-14, Old Gobind Pura Extension, Delhi-110051
including "the suit property".
(b) It is averred that the Defendant was inducted as a tenant in respect of a three-
room set on the Ground Floor of the suit property vide a Rent Agreement dated
15.07.2021, for a fixed period of eleven months commencing from 01.07.2021 at a
monthly rent of Rs. 12,500/- (exclusive of electricity, water, and maintenance
charges). It is stated that the defendant had paid rent up to 30.11.2024, and thereafter,
defaulted in making further payments.
(c) It is averred that the initial tenancy expired by efflux of time, and despite
issuance of notice terminating tenancy and repeated requests & reminders, the
defendant has failed to vacate the tenanted premises and continues to occupy the
same. It is further averred that the tenancy of the defendant after expiry of rent
agreement was on a monthly basis, commencing on the 1st day of each month and
expiring on the last day of the same month. The Defendant last paid rent up to
30.11.2024.
(d) It is averred that the plaintiff has duly refunded the defendant's security deposit
of Rs. 20,000/- on 08.08.2024, as acknowledged in Clause 14 of the Rent Agreement.
CS SCJ No.231/2025 Charanjeet Anand vs Simran Choudhary Page No. 2/ 7
-- 2 of 7 --
(e) It is averred that despite multiple requests by the Plaintiff to vacate the
tenanted premises, the Defendant has willfully ignored such requests. The Defendant
has acted with ulterior motives and malafide intent, adopting deceitful means to
unduly pressurize the Plaintiff into renewing the Rent Agreement. In furtherance of
such conduct, the Defendant even issued a legal notice dated 18.11.2024 and the
same was replied by the plaintiff on 02.12.2024. It is averred that the Plaintiff is no
longer interested in continuing the tenancy. Although the tenancy expired by efflux of
time, the Plaintiff, as a matter of abundant caution, terminated the Defendant's
tenancy through a legal notice dated 08.02.2025, directing the Defendant to vacate
the tenanted premises within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Hence,
this suit.
3. Written Statement of Defendant
In her written statement, the defendant admitted that she is tenant of plaintiff in
the suit property and the plaintiff is the owner of the suit Property. However, she
contended that the plaintiff is attempting to mislead the court to unlawfully evict the
defendant from the suit property and harass her and her family. It is stated that the
defendant is a bonafide tenant of the suit property, and the tenancy is still in effect. It
is stated that the plaintiff has unlawfully returned the security deposit of Rs.20,000 to
the defendant, despite her not vacating the premises.
4. Application u/o XII rule 6 CPC
By way of the present application, the plaintiff seek a decree on admissions,
contending that the defendant has unequivocally admitted plaintiff’s ownership and
entitlement over the suit property and that she was put to notice to vacate the
property. It is stated that the defendant has admitted the relationship of landlord and
tenant between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Execution of Rent Agreement dated
CS SCJ No.231/2025 Charanjeet Anand vs Simran Choudhary Page No. 3/ 7
-- 3 of 7 --
15.07.2021, the rate of rent being Rs. 12,500/- per month, the possession of the
Defendant in the suit property as tenant under the Plaintiff and receipt of legal
notice/knowledge regarding termination of tenancy. It is argued that the defendants’
continued possession of the suit property is unauthorized and without legal basis. The
plaintiffs therefore pray that the suit be decreed on the strength of these admissions.
In reply, the defendant argued that the application is not maintainable as there
are no clear admissions on her part. It is stated that there is no clear, unequivocal,
unconditional or unambiguous admission on the part of the defendant that the tenancy
has been validly terminated or that the Plaintiff has become entitled to recover
possession of the suit property. On the contrary, the Written Statement categorically
sets out the Defendant's defence that the original rent agreement is for a period of 11
months and, upon expiry thereof, the tenancy continued as an oral month-to-month
tenancy, under which the Defendant continued to remain in lawful possession and
regularly paid rent. It is stated that the receipt of a legal notice cannot, by itself,
amount to an admission of the validity, legality, sufficiency or legal effect of such
notice. On these grounds, she submit that the application is devoid of merit and
deserves dismissal with exemplary costs.
5. I have considered the grounds taken by both the parties and perused the record.
6. It is notable that the suit property is owned by plaintiff and defendant is tenant
of plaintiff and such fact is unequivocally admitted by the defendant in her written
statement. It is also admitted by the defendant in her written statement that rate of
rent was Rs 12,500/ per month. While the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant is in
arrears of rent, the defendant has denied the same. Though, interestingly an
application has also been made by defendant offering payment of arrears of rent after
CS SCJ No.231/2025 Charanjeet Anand vs Simran Choudhary Page No. 4/ 7
-- 4 of 7 --
reconciliation. Nonetheless, in view of the above, the admission regarding the
ownership of plaintiff and tenancy of defendant is unequivocal and unambiguous.
7. It is pertinent to mention that it is admitted position, as forthcoming from the
pleadings, that the tenancy of the tenant was on month-to month basis. As per section
106 of TPA, a tenancy which is on month to month basis, can be terminated by a
notice of 15 days. Notably, a legal notice was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant on
08.02.2025 which has been duly replied by the defendant. Thus, receipt of legal
notice has also not been denied. As per Section 108 (q) of TPA, a lessee is under
obligation to vacate the tenanted property and hand over the possession to
landlord/lessor on termination of tenancy.
8. It is beneficial to note that while referring to provisions u/o XII Rule 6 CPC, it
has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Kapahi and Others vs.
Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and Another, (2010) 4 SCC 753 that :-
“In the 54th Law Commission Report, an amendment was suggested to
enable the Court to give a judgment not only on the application of a party
but on its own motion. It is thus clear that the amendment was brought
about to further the ends of justice and give these provisions a wider
sweep by empowering judges to use it `ex debito justitiae, a Latin term,
meaning a debt of justice. In our opinion the thrust of the amendment is
that in an appropriate case, a party, on the admission of the other party,
can press for judgment, as a matter of legal right. However, the Court
always retains its discretion in the matter of pronouncing judgment.
9. It has been further 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 the only pre
requisite for passing a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is that there must be
admission of fact arising in the suit, be that in the pleadings or otherwise or orally or
in writing and that the admissions must be clear and unequivocal, unconditional and
unambiguous. Further, the admissions need not be made specifically or expressly and
CS SCJ No.231/2025 Charanjeet Anand vs Simran Choudhary Page No. 5/ 7
-- 5 of 7 --
could be a constructive admission as well. So it is not required in law that admission
only has to be in the pleadings.
10. Furthermore in a recent case titled as Keshav Chander Thakur & Anr. Vs.
Krishan Chander & Ors. 211 (2014) DLT 149 (DB), it was similarly held by
Hon'ble Delhi High Court that :-
"However, in our view given the nature of pleadings and admitted
documents on record and the extensive arguments advanced by the
parties on the issues discussed herein, this was a fit case for the Court to
exercise powers under Order XII Rule 6 CPC where the Court has
powers to suo moto pass a judgment. There is no requirement in Order
XII Rule 6 CPC for filing of a formal application. The Court can on its
own motion without any application by a party proceed to pass a decree
on admissions as stated in Order XII Rule 6 CPC."
11. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that the
claim of the defendant that there is no unequivocal admission on her part is without
any merits, as defendant in her WS has categorically stated that the plaintiff was the
landlord qua the suit property and that a rent agreement was executed for a period of
eleven months on 15.07.2021 and after which the tenancy became month-to-month
tenancy.
12. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for defendant that the legal notice did not
terminate the tenancy is not tenable. In this regard, I am keeping in view the Section
106 of TPA which provides for termination of tenancy by notice. Further, it is settled
position of law that no objection with regard to termination of tenancy is permitted on
the ground that legal notice did not validly terminate the tenancy, as long as a period
of 15 days was otherwise given to the tenant to vacate.
13. Thus, considering the matter from overall perspective it has to be held that
defendant was a tenant of plaintiff in the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs
12,500/- and the said tenancy has been duly terminated.
CS SCJ No.231/2025 Charanjeet Anand vs Simran Choudhary Page No. 6/ 7
-- 6 of 7 --
14. Accordingly, the application of plaintiff stands partly allowed qua the relief of
possession. The plaintiff has also sought relief of arrears of rent amounting to
Rs.37,500/- along with interest @ 15% per annum & water and maintenance charges
@ Rs.300/- per month from Aug. 2024 to February 2025 amounting to Rs.2,100/- and
mesne profits and the said reliefs can not be granted without any evidence qua the
same though it is notable that rate of rent has also been admitted by the defendant in
her written statement.
15. The suit of the plaintiff is thus partly decreed in the following terms:
(a) The defendant is directed to vacate the suit property i.e. Ground Floor of
property bearing No.K-14, Old Gobind Pura Extension, Delhi-110051,
within 30 days from the date of this order.
16. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
17. Be put up for PE with respect to the remaining issues of arrears of rent and
mesne profits on 28.10.2026.
Pronounced in the open court
today on 24.08.2026.
(NITISH KUMAR SHARMA)
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC (East)
KKD Courts, Delhi/24.08.2026
CS SCJ No.231/2025 Charanjeet Anand vs Simran Choudhary Page No. 7/ 7
-- 7 of 7 --