Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Civ Suit 420/24
Tansha Arora Vs. Harjeet Kaur
Pg. no. 1/6
Civ Suit 420/24
Tansha Arora Vs. Harjeet Kaur
17.11.2025
ORDER
1. Vide this order, application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC
filed by the plaintiff shall be adjudicated.
2.
Pithily put, the present case is one for recovery of
possession, permanent injunction, recovery of arrears and
mesne profits as against the defendant. It is the plaintiff's
case that she inducted the defendant as a tenant in August,
2023 in suit property i.e. Flat No. 17/78, First Floor, Geeta
Colony, Delhi-110031 consisting of Two Rooms Set with
electricity and tap water connections alongwith the
concerned meter, with common rights to use the entrance,
stairs etc., (hereinafter referred to as suit property) on a
monthly rent of Rs. 8,500/- for a period of 24 months
commencing from 11.08.2023 vide a registered rent
agreement dated 12.09.2023. It is averred that the defendant
paid rent only for two months i.e. upto October, 2023 and
thereafter, the defendant failed to make any further payment
despite repeated requests and reminders. It is claimed that as
per clause 7 of the said rent agreement, in case the tenant
fails to pay rent for two months or breaches any terms of the
deed, the landlord shall have the right to terminate the
tenancy and evict the tenant from the premises forthwith.
The plaintiff has further alleged that when she demanded the
arrears of rent and other dues, the defendant, alongwith her
-- 1 of 6 --
Civ Suit 420/24
Tansha Arora Vs. Harjeet Kaur
Pg. no. 2/6
son, quarreled with her, raised false demands for money,
filed frivolous complaints and even disconnected the
electricity supply of the suit property, falsely alleging that
the plaintiff had done so to harass her. Consequently, the
plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant vide legal
notice dated 17.02.2024.
3. Upon summons having been issued, the defendant entered
an appearance and WS was filed.
4. The defendant in her WS admitted the execution of the rent
agreement dated 12.09.2023. However, it has been
contended that there exists no ground for eviction as the
defendant has been paying rent regularly upto April, 2024. It
is, therefore, argued that the present suit is premature as the
rent agreement was valid till August, 2025 and the suit was
instituted way earlier in May, 2025.
5. In view of the WS qua defendant having been filed as
aforesaid, the application in question under Order 12 Rule 6
CPC came to be filed by the plaintiff. As per the said
application, it is contended that the defendant has made
clear, unequivocal, unambiguous and unconditional
admission in respect of the claim of the plaintiff by
admitting that she was inducted as a tenant by the plaintiff in
the suit property in August, 2023 vide registered rent
agreement dated 12.09.2023. Thus, it is argued that the
-- 2 of 6 --
Civ Suit 420/24
Tansha Arora Vs. Harjeet Kaur
Pg. no. 3/6
plaintiff suit is liable to be decreed in part in respect of the
relief of possession under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.
6. Reply to the application in question was filed by defendant.
She opposed the contentions taken by the plaintiff in the
application and reiterated her version as stated in the WS.
7. Submissions heard. Record perused.
8. The import of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC has been reiterated by
superior courts from time to time. As per the same, the Court
can, either on its own or on application pass judgment in
view of admissions of facts made by the parties in their
pleadings or otherwise, orally or in writing at any stage of
the suit. In fact, such admissions may not be categorical and
even constructive admissions which can be inferred from
the facts and circumstances of the case can form the basis of
passing of orders under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The
underlying theme of such a provision is to curtail litigation
on agreed aspects of the suit and narrow it down to points of
contention only upon which there are differing stands of the
parties. The Court must not allow unnecessary litigation to
continue on factual aspects which are admitted by the
parties and orders for relief can be passed in that regard
without further ado. (
Anar Devi Vs. Nathu Ram (1984) 4
SCC 250)
-- 3 of 6 --
Civ Suit 420/24
Tansha Arora Vs. Harjeet Kaur
Pg. no. 4/6
9. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of
Rajeev Tandon v. Rashmi Tandon, 2019 SCC OnLine Del
7336 held that vague, unsubstantiated and evasive pleas in
the WS are sufficient to hold that there are admissions in the
pleadings to pass a decree under Order XII Rule 6.
10.Thus, while disposing of an application under Order XII
Rule 6 CPC, the court is fully justified in considering the
averments in the written statement to see whether essential
facts have been pleaded or whether the defence is a
complete moonshine, requiring the Court to not send the
case for trial.
11.In the present case, it is not in dispute that a landlord tenant
relationship exists between the parties nor that the rent
agreement dated 12.09.2023 was executed at a rent of
Rs.8500/- per month, which is beyond the purview of Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958. The principle defence raised by the
defendant is only regarding alleged payment of rent and the
plea that the tenancy was still subsisting when the suit was
filed.
12. As regards the issue of default in payment of rent, the same
is a matter of evidence and can only be determined after
parties have led evidence. It cannot be decided at this stage.
However, such dispute regarding payment of rent does not
affect the entitlement of the plaintiff to a decree of
possession once the tenancy has come to an end by efflux of
-- 4 of 6 --
Civ Suit 420/24
Tansha Arora Vs. Harjeet Kaur
Pg. no. 5/6
time. No doubt, it is true that the present suit was instituted
prior to the expiry of the term of the rent agreement i.e.
August, 2025. However, merely this fact cannot give a right
to the defendant to continue occupying the suit property
despite the tenancy having been terminated. Such a view
would cause undue hardship to the plaintiff and would
defeat the ends of justice. Admittedly, during the pendency
of the proceedings, the period of tenancy as per the admitted
agreement has already expired by efflux of time. Moreover,
the filing of the present suit itself signifies the clear
intention of the plaintiff that she does not wish to continue
with the tenancy of the defendant. Furthermore, the
defendant has not placed on record any material to show that
the tenancy has been extended or renewed beyond the
original term. In such circumstances, it can clearly be said
that there is no subsisting tenancy between the parties and
there remains no triable issue regarding the defendant’s
right to occupy the suit premises. Therefore, the entitlement
of the plaintiff to possession of the suit property stands
established on the basis of admitted facts.
13.Further, since it has been held that there was a jural
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and
that the tenancy has now been terminated, the defendant has
no right, title or interest in the property. Hence, the plaintiff
is also held entitled for grant of injunction restraining the
defendant from creating any third party interest in the suit
property.
-- 5 of 6 --
Civ Suit 420/24
Tansha Arora Vs. Harjeet Kaur
Pg. no. 6/6
14.Considering the above, the application under Order 12 rule
6 CPC filed by the plaintiff stands allowed in the above
terms and the suit is partly decreed. Accordingly, a decree of
possession qua the suit premises as well as of permanent
injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant. The defendant is directed to hand over and
deliver the actual physical vacant and peaceful possession
of the suit property i.e. Flat No. 17/78, First Floor, Geeta
Colony, Delhi-110031 consisting of Two Rooms Set with
electricity and tap water connections alongwith the
concerned meter, with common rights to use the entrance,
stairs etc., to the plaintiff immediately after the expiry of
statutory period of appeal. Further, the defendant is also
restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit
property.
15.No order as to costs.
16.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
17.Application disposed in the above-mentioned terms.
(Dr. Saema Jain)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge
East/KKD Courts/Delhi
17.11.2025
-- 6 of 6 --