Interim Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK BENIWAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, EAST,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Civ Suit 445/2025
CNR No.:- DLET03-000707-2025
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sh. Rakesh Nayyar
.... Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Devi Sharan
..... Defendant
ORDER ON APPLICATION FILED U/O XII RULE 6 CPC
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the present application filed by the
plaintiff u/O XII Rule 6 of CPC.
2. In brief, the facts averred by the plaintiff are as follows:-
a) The plaintiff is the owner of property bearing no. 2-A/3, Geeta
Colony, Delhi-110031, built upto 3 storeys and consisting 1 shop at ground
floor. That the defendant was inducted as a tenant by the plaintiff in shop
measuring 7’x8’ approx i.e. 5.20 sq. meters, situated at ground floor of
above said property, vide rent agreement registered as registration no. 9032, in
Book No.1, Vol. No. 10840 on page no. 99 to 102 on dated 25thSeptember
2023, for a period of 11 months at monthly rent of Rs.11,000/-commencing
from 01.10.2023 to 31.08.2024 excluding water and electricity charges.
That the defendant also deposited Rs.10,000/- as interest free security with the
plaintiff which was agreed to be returned at the time of vacation of tenanted
premises.
b) That the defendant was paying the monthly rent on time up to
Civ Suit 445/2025
Rakesh Nayyar vs. Devi Sharan
Page 1 of 7
-- 1 of 7 --
June 2024 but since July 2024, the defendanthas been a habitual defaulter in
the payment of rent and deliberately stopped paying rent to the plaintiff. That
plaintiff time and again demanded the rent from the defendant but every time,
the defendant showed his inability to pay the monthly rent. Thus, the arrears of
rent for 11 months i.e. July 2024 to May 2025 has accumulated to
Rs.1,21,000/-. That the defendant is liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum for
the aforesaid amount of arrear of rent. That the plaintiff personally served a
handwritten notice dated 30.08.2024 upon defendant asking him to clear the
arrears of rent and either to vacate the suit property or to execute another
rent agreement with freshterms and conditions. The same was duly
acknowledged by defendant, however, defendant failed to comply with the
same.
c) That the aforesaid rent agreement expired on 31.08.2024 and
despite being liable to vacate the suit property and to handover its vacant and
peaceful possession to plaintiff, defendant did not vacate the suit property on
expiry of rent agreement, thus, his possession in the suit property became as
that of illegal occupant and hence, defendant became liable to pay damages at
the rate of Rs.1,000/- per day w.e.f. 01.09.2024. That the plaintiff served
another handwritten notice dated 13.11.2024 upon the defendant asking him
to clear the arrears of rent and to vacate the suit property till 30.11.2024,
which was received and acknowledged by the defendant but again defendant
did not pay any heed to the request of the plaintiff.
d) Thereafter, the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 29.03.2025 to
defendant thereby calling upon him to clear the arrears of rent and also to
vacate the suit property within 30 days of service of said legal notice and
surrender the vacate peaceful possession of the same to the plaintiff and in
case of failure, to pay damages/mesne profit @ Rs.1,000/- per day for
unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property. The said legal notice
was served upon defendant on 12.04.2025 through Whatsapp but the
Civ Suit 445/2025
Rakesh Nayyar vs. Devi Sharan
Page 2 of 7
-- 2 of 7 --
defendant did not comply with the same. After receiving the legal notice, the
defendant threatened the plaintiff that in case plaintiff ask him to vacate the
suit property, he would not easily surrender the possession of the suit property
and would certainly create complications for him so that he is not able to
recover the possession for many years. Defendant further threatened the
plaintiff that he will sublet or handover the suit property to some Gunda
element and will also implicate the plaintiff in false criminal cases. Thus, the
plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant orally which was agreed by
the defendant, hence, the defendant has no legal right, title or interest to use
and occupy the suit property. That the plaintiff has grave apprehension that the
defendant may transfer or sublet the suit property to any third person without
the consent and permission of the plaintiff and may create third party interest
in the suit property.
e) In this background, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking
possession, permanent injunction and recovery of arrears of rent.
3. In his written statement, the defendant has admitted in Para no.4 that the
plaintiff is the landlord of the defendant and the defendant is regularly paying
the monthly rent of the above mentioned tenanted premises on time, but it is
the plaintiff, who wants to illegally dispossess the defendant from the suit
property. It is further averred that after expiry of the registered rent agreement
dated 22.09.2023, the defendant approached for renewal of the rent agreement
to extend the same, but the plaintiff did not pay any heed. The plaintiff
intentionally and deliberately did not extend the rent agreement but the
defendant had paid the regular rent amount till June 2025. It is further averred
that the defendant had also handed over three blank signed security cheque
bearing no. 000002, 000017 all drawn on Punjab & Sindh Bank to the plaintiff
and also gave Rs.10,000/- as a security and after expiry of the above said rent
agreement, the plaintiff had taken Rs.40,000/- being security but not renewed
Civ Suit 445/2025
Rakesh Nayyar vs. Devi Sharan
Page 3 of 7
-- 3 of 7 --
the said agreement intentionally and deliberately and till now the refundable
security is Rs.50,000/- upon the plaintiff. It is further averred that defendant
had spent a huge amount in the renovation of the tenanted premises. It is
further averred that in the Month of March 2025, the plaintiff had cut off the
electricity connection of the defendant, due to which the defendant had
suffered a lot of financial crises. That the plaintiff had not paid the proper
court fee with the plaint. It is further averred that plaintiff had also not
supplied the copy of the application u/O VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment and
the defendant not replied the said application. It is further averred that the
defendant is having no other suitable accommodation to run his work except
the tenanted premises and the plaintiff is very well known to this fact.
4. In the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the Plaintiff has averred
that the Defendant has admitted his status as a tenant in the Suit Property
under the tenancy of plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs.11,000/-. On 18.09.2025,
an statement of the defendant was also recorded. It is submitted that in view of
the said admissions, a decree of possession may be passed in favour of the
Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
5. Arguments have been heard on behalf of parties and record has been
perused. Order XII Rule 6 is reproduced below:
“Judgment on Admissions: (1) Where admissions of fact have been
made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing,
the court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any
party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of
any other question between the parties, make such order or give such
judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1), a decree
shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall
Civ Suit 445/2025
Rakesh Nayyar vs. Devi Sharan
Page 4 of 7
-- 4 of 7 --
bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.”
6. In M/s Everest Kanto Cylinders Limited vs. M/s Agro Impex (I) Private
Limited [CS (OS) 564/2009 & I.A. No.3680/2010] it was observed by Hon'ble
High court of Delhi that-
“A plain reading of Order 12 R.6 CPC makes it abundantly clear that it
is open to the court to pass a judgment on admissions in the pleadings or
otherwise. The said provision clearly indicates that it is open to the court
to pronounce the judgment on statement made by the parties and
documents on record can be taken note of, dehors the pleadings.
Admission may be made either specific or constructively. If the court is
satisfied that the admission made by a party is unambiguous, a decree
can straightaway be passed without taking recourse to trial.”
7. In Ashok Kumar Bagga vs. Rajvinder Kaur [AIR OnLine 2021 DEL
724], the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held that in a suit for recovery of
possession from a tenant (whose tenancy is not protected under the provisions
of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958), all that is required to be established by the
Plaintiff/landlord is the existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties and the termination of tenancy either by lapse of time or
by notice served by the landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882. So long as these two aspects are not in dispute, Court is competent
to pass a decree in terms of Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Therefore, to decide the
application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC for the relief of possession, the
Court has to determine the following aspects:
a) Whether there has been unambiguous admission w.r.t the
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;
b) If the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted, whether the
rate of rent is more than Rs. 3500/- per month;
c) If it is admitted that the relationship between the parties is of
landlord and tenant and the rate of rent is more than Rs. 3500/- per
month, whether notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is
Civ Suit 445/2025
Rakesh Nayyar vs. Devi Sharan
Page 5 of 7
-- 5 of 7 --
admitted.
8. So, the very first point that has to be decided is whether there exists the
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as to whether the
rate of rent is more than Rs. 3500/- and whether rent being more than Rs.
3500/- pm, has been admitted by the tenant (defendant in the present case) or
not. In his written statement under para no. 4, the defendant has admitted that
the plaintiff is the landlord of the defendant and defendant is regularly paying
the monthly rent of the above mentioned tenanted premises on time. Vide
separate statement of defendant dated 18.09.2025, it is stated by the defendant
that he is a tenant in the suit property under the tenancy of the plaintiff and he
pays monthly rent of Rs.11,000/- per month.
9. In a nutshell, this Court is of the considered opinion that the jural
relationship between the parties being that of landlord - tenant, having been
terminated on expiry of rent agreement, the defendant has no right to keep the
possession of the Suit Premises. Moreover, as no proof of payment of rent
amount is placed on record, the defendant’s case remains implausible.
Therefore, the defence set up by the defendant is such as to make it impossible
for a party to succeed and therefore, is a ground enough to accept the defense
as admission and grant possession of the Suit Premises to the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the present case is fit case to be decreed under Order XXII Rule
6 of CPC for the relief of the possession of the suit premises.
10. In view of the above mentioned, the present application under
Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is disposed as allowed and defendant is directed to
handover the possession of the Suit Premises i.e. shop measuring 7’x8’
approx i.e. 5.20 sq. meters, situated at ground floor of property bearing no. 2-
A/3, Geeta Colony, Delhi-110031 shown in red color in the site plan, within a
period of one month from today.
Civ Suit 445/2025
Rakesh Nayyar vs. Devi Sharan
Page 6 of 7
-- 6 of 7 --
11. A decree of permanent injunction is also passed in favor of plaintiff
and against the defendant restraining defendant, his relatives, employees,
servants, assigns, attorneys, representatives, agents, associates, legal heirs etc.
from inducting any third person in possession in the suit property or
subletting the suit property and from subletting, creating third party interest,
making any addition, alteration and construction in the suit property without
consent of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in open court
on this 07.05.2026.
Vivek Beniwal
Senior Civil Judge-cum-RC (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Civ Suit 445/2025
Rakesh Nayyar vs. Devi Sharan
Page 7 of 7
-- 7 of 7 --