Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF Ms. MEENU KAUSHIK
DISTRICT JUDGE – 03, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURT
CS No.19/2025
Shri Ravi Shankar Dabas & Anr.
…Plaintiffs
Versus
Grandlay Electricals Indian & Anr.
...Defendants
ORDER
1. This order shall decide whether decree for recovery of
possession of suit property on admissions made by defendants
can be passed in favour of the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 of
Code of Civil Procedure.
Plaint:
2. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs are co-owners of
the immovable property bearing No. B-1/17, Vasant Vihar, 1st
Floor with half terrace rights alongwith one car parking in
driveway and one servant quarter with common WC on terrace
measuring 600 Sq. Yards.
CS No. 19/25 Shri Ravi Shankar Dabas & Anr. v. Grandlay Electricals Indian & Anr. Pages 1/14
-- 1 of 14 --
3. It is stated that defendant No.1 Grandlays Electricals Ltd.
is a partnership concern and defendant No.2 is the partner of
defendant No.1 firm. It is stated that the defendant No.2 had
approached plaintiffs for taking the suit property on rent for
residential purposes for his family and accordingly the suit
property was leased out to Shri Hitansh Batra who is son of
defendant No.2 vide lease deed dated 01.01.2019 for two years
i.e. 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2020. After expiry of aforesaid lease
deed, defendant No.2 desired to continue to stay in the property
for a further period of two years. However, defendant No.2
requested plaintiffs to enter into a new lease deed with the
defendant No.1 so as to enable the defendants to seek tax benefits
to which plaintiffs agreed and vide lease deed dated 01.01.2021
the suit property was leased out to defendant No.1 to be used as a
residence of defendant No.2 for a monthly rent of Rs.70,000/-
and the same could be renewed with mutual consent of the
parties. After expiry of lease deed dated 01.01.2021, defendant
No.2 evinced interest in continuing the tenancy for another period
of two years and in pursuance of the negotiations, plaintiff and
defendant No.1 entered into a fresh lease deed dated 01.01.2023
for a period of two years i.e. from 01.01.2023 to 31.12.2024 at
monthly rent of Rs.1,00,000/-. As per the lease deed dated
01.01.2023, besides the rent, defendant No.1 had also furnished
interest free security deposit of Rs.2,25,000/- to the plaintiffs
CS No. 19/25 Shri Ravi Shankar Dabas & Anr. v. Grandlay Electricals Indian & Anr. Pages 2/14
-- 2 of 14 --
which was to be returned to defendants at the time of vacation of
the suit premises by the defendants.
4. It is stated that in the month of November, 2024 plaintiffs
came to know about a fake rumour being spread by defendant
No.2 that he had entered into an agreement to sell in respect of
the property with plaintiffs. It is stated that in view of above
facts, plaintiff No.2 issued a letter dated 11.11.2024 to defendants
that the lease deed dated 01.01.2023 was due to expire on
31.12.2024 and plaintiffs did not wish to enter into any fresh
lease agreement with defendants. It is further stated that despite
receiving the letter dated 11.11.2024, defendants chose not to
respond and hence plaintiffs got a legal notice dated 28.11.2024
issued to the defendants informing the defendants that lease deed
dated 01.01.2023 was due to expire on 31.12.2024 and plaintiffs
did not wish to enter into a new lease agreement with defendants.
5. It is stated that defendants for the first time issued their
reply to notice dated 19.12.2024 whereby falsely alleging therein
that defendants have entered into an oral agreement to sell dated
29.10.2023 with the plaintiffs and payment of Rs.1,00,000/- made
on monthly basis was towards consideration of sale of property
and not towards monthly rent of the property. It is stated that the
stand taken by the defendant is not only imaginary, baseless and
false but it is also contrary to the legal mandate as admittedly
CS No. 19/25 Shri Ravi Shankar Dabas & Anr. v. Grandlay Electricals Indian & Anr. Pages 3/14
-- 3 of 14 --
defendants were put in possession of suit property as tenant on
monthly rent and there is no other right bestowed in their favour
to possess the property. It is further stated that there is no
agreement to sell between the parties in respect of the property
and the monthly payment made by the defendants was only
towards the monthly rent of the property. Monthly deductions of
10% TDS by defendants while remitting the rent to the plaintiffs
is testament of the said fact.
6. Despite expiry of the term of lease deed dated 01.01.2023
on 31.12.2024 by efflux of time, the defendants have failed to
hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the property to the
plaintiff and thus defendants are in illegal and unauthorized
possession of property since 01.01.2025.
Written Statement
7. In written statement defendants stated that the plaintiffs
have suppressed material facts. Defendant No.1 is a partnership
firm and defendant No.2 is one of its partners. Defendant No.2
has been residing with his family in suit property since 2019 and
owing to the mutual trust built over for many years defendant
No.2 entered into an oral agreement to sell with the plaintiffs on
29.10.2023 for purchasing the suit property and concurrently at
the same time defendant No.2 also entered into an oral agreement
CS No. 19/25 Shri Ravi Shankar Dabas & Anr. v. Grandlay Electricals Indian & Anr. Pages 4/14
-- 4 of 14 --
to sell with plaintiff’s brother Kuldeep Singh Verma on the same
date for purchasing the floor above the suit property i.e. second
floor alongwith 50% terrace. Both the properties were agreed to
be sold for Rs.12,40,00,000/- towards each property. For the
purchase of suit property defendant No.1 made advance payment
of Rs.1 Lac in cash as earnest money on the same day i.e.
29.10.2023 and the balance sale consideration was agreed to be
paid by defendant No.2 at the time of receiving of peaceful and
vacant possession of second floor of the property in terms of oral
agreement to sell. The sale deed for suit property was agreed to
be executed together with the execution of sale deed for the
second property. It is further stated that due to mutual trust and
long standing relationship between defendant No.2 and plaintiffs
it was agreed that defendant No.2 would continue to pay monthly
payment of Rs.1 Lac to plaintiff towards the sale consideration of
suit property which would be adjusted against the total sale
consideration at the time of execution of sale deed. Defendant
No.2 also paid sum of Rs.51 Lac as earnest money to Mr.
Kuldeep Singh Verma for purchase of second floor of the
property out of which Rs.1 Lac was paid in cash and rest was
paid via cheque. Balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid
at the time of handing over peaceful and vacant physical
possession of second floor of property. The said payment was
also done at the time of entering into the agreement on
29.10.2023. The nature of defendant’s No.2 possession in the suit
CS No. 19/25 Shri Ravi Shankar Dabas & Anr. v. Grandlay Electricals Indian & Anr. Pages 5/14
-- 5 of 14 --
property changed on 29.10.2023 and remains the same till date
i.e. as a purchaser in possession pursuant to an agreement to sell
on the basis of part performance. On 30.10.2023 Mr. Kuldeep
sent notice of eviction to his tenant in the second floor of the
property in order to execute the agreement to sell however,
despite many assurances Mr. Kuldeep failed to evict his tenant
from second floor of the property within the agreed time-line.
However, defendant No.2 is remained ready and willing to
purchase the said property.
8. After several attempts to resolve the dispute with Mr.
Kuldeep, defendant No.2 was constrained to institute a suit
bearing CS (OS) No. 871/2024 against him before Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi seeking specific performance of oral agreement to
sell of second floor of the property. However, similar suit was not
filed against the plaintiffs as both of them categorically and
consistently assured defendant No.2 that they were ready and
willing to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property and
thus, in good faith defendant No.2 continued in making payment
of Rs.1 Lac to the plaintiff on monthly basis towards total sale
consideration of the suit property and defendant No.2 is still
ready and willing to pay remaining sale consideration on
execution of sale deed upon the convey of the date of the same by
the plaintiff.
CS No. 19/25 Shri Ravi Shankar Dabas & Anr. v. Grandlay Electricals Indian & Anr. Pages 6/14
-- 6 of 14 --
9. In the application u/O 12 Rule 6 CPC it is stated by
plaintiff that defendant no.2 in his affidavit towards admission
and denial have unequivocally and explicitly admitted that:
a) Defendants were inducted into the suit property as tenants
by plaintiffs.
b) Execution and validity of last lease deed dated 01.01.2023
by virtue whereof, defendant’s tenancy was extended for the last
time.
c) Receipt of legal notice dated 28.11.2024 whereby
defendants were asked to vacate the property in terms of lease
deed dated 01.01.2023
d) Despite expiry of lease deed dated 01.01.2023 by efflux of
time on 31.12.2024 and receipt of plaintiffs notice to vacate,
defendants continue to illegally occupy the property.
10. It is further stated that as per admissions made by
defendants the defendants are in illegal and unauthorized
occupation of the suit property and as per the settled position of
law the tenants must vacate the premises post expiry of the
tenancy agreement. It is further stated that defendants have raised
bogus issue of an alleged oral agreement to sell dated 29.10.2023
with respect to suit property and the said plea of defendant is
unsustainable under law since there is no semblance of proof
evidencing existing of any such agreement in any manner
CS No. 19/25 Shri Ravi Shankar Dabas & Anr. v. Grandlay Electricals Indian & Anr. Pages 7/14
-- 7 of 14 --
whatsoever. It is further stated that even otherwise law does not
recognize any such agreements and as per Indian Stamp Act and
Indian Registration Act, agreement to sell of immovable property
whereby possession of premises was delivered in part
performance can only be by a registered document bearing the
prescribed stamp duty on 90% of total agreed sale consideration.
It is further argued that the defence raised by defendants of
alleged oral agreement with respect to purchase of the suit
property is thus barred under law. ld. counsel for plaintiff has
relied upon Shiv Kumar Vs. Sumit Gulati (MANU/DE/
4287/2015) wherein Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held as
under:
“13. In the present case, it is not even the case of the
appellant that the alleged agreement to sell entered
into between the parties in November 2007, was
registered. The effect of non-registration of the
agreement to sell, even if the same is presumed to
have been so executed as claimed by the
appellant/defendant (which is disputed by the
respondent/plaintiff), is that the appellant/defendant
cannot claim to have come into possession of the suit
property under the alleged agreement, and cannot
claim to be in possession in part performance of the
alleged agreement to sell, He, thus, cannot claim
protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of
Property Act.
14. The status of the appellant’s possession of the
suit property continues to be on that of a tenant. This
being the position, it cannot be said that the
relationship between the parties as that of landlord
CS No. 19/25 Shri Ravi Shankar Dabas & Anr. v. Grandlay Electricals Indian & Anr. Pages 8/14
-- 8 of 14 --
and tenant, come to an end when the alleged
agreement to sell is claimed to have been executed.
The rights and obligations of the parties continued to
be governed by the said relationship of landlord and
tenant, even post the alleged execution of the
agreement to sell. Thus, the respondent/ plaintiff was
entitled to claim the relief of possession on the
premise that he is the landlord of the appellant
plaintiff in the suit property and that the tenancy of
the appellant stood terminated. It is not even the case
of the appellant that the tenancy of the appellant did
not stand terminated. No issue of maintainability of
the suit in the light of the bar contained in Section 50
of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 arises in the
present case. Consequently the appellant does not
have a valid grievance with the passing of a partial
decree for ejectment on the basis of admission that
the relationship of the parties qua the suit property
was that of landlord and tenant."
11. On the basis of the above averments, prayer is made on
behalf of plaintiff for passing a decree for recovery of possession
of suit premises.
12. Arguments addressed by the parties are taken into
consideration. Record perused.
13. In the case of Bhim Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors
2000 (VI) AD (Delhi) 356, it was held by the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court that the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC confers
CS No. 19/25 Shri Ravi Shankar Dabas & Anr. v. Grandlay Electricals Indian & Anr. Pages 9/14
-- 9 of 14 --
almost sweeping powers on the Court to render a speedy
judgment in the suit to save the parties from going through the
rigmarole of trial. The only prerequisite for this is that there must
be admissions of facts arising in the suit, be that in the pleadings
or otherwise or orally or in writing. It was held that such
admission of fact must be clear and unequivocal, unconditional
and unambiguous and may relate to the whole claim or part of it.
The Hon’ble High Court held that these admissions need not be
made expressly or specifically and could be constructive
admissions also.
14. In the case of Uttam Singh Duggal Vs. Union of India
AIR 2000 SC 2740, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where a
claim is admitted, the Court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment
for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the object of the Rule is to
enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent
of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant,
the plaintiff is entitled. It was held that the Court should not unduly
narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable
a party to obtain a speedy judgment.
15. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Sourabh
Aggarwal Vs. Sh. Megh Raj Mansharamani RSA No.179/2013
decided on 09.01.2014 has held the following:
CS No. 19/25 Shri Ravi Shankar Dabas & Anr. v. Grandlay Electricals Indian & Anr. Pages 10/14
-- 10 of 14 --
“2. In Delhi, in order to maintain the suit for
possession in a civil court against the tenant, it is
necessary that the following facts must exist:-
(i) There is a relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties;
(ii)The rate of rent of the premises is more than
Rs.3,500/- per month; and
(iii)The tenancy of the tenant has either expired by
efflux of time or stands duly terminated by a notice
under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882.”
16. In the present case, there is no dispute as to the relationship
of the landlord and tenant between the parties. During the course
of oral arguments, it is admitted on behalf of the defendants that
the defendant no. 2 is still paying rent at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/-
to the plaintiff. Thus, it is admitted fact that the rate of rent of the
premises is more than Rs.3,500/- per month. Both these aspects
stand admitted in the present case.
17. In paragraph no. 10 and 11 of the plaint, the plaintiff has
averred that legal notice dated 28.11.2024 was issued and served
upon the defendants, calling upon the defendants to handover the
vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiffs. The
defendants in their affidavit to admission and denial of
documents have admitted the receiving of the legal notice.
CS No. 19/25 Shri Ravi Shankar Dabas & Anr. v. Grandlay Electricals Indian & Anr. Pages 11/14
-- 11 of 14 --
18. Even otherwise, service of summons of the present suit is
also a notice of termination of tenancy issued to the defendant. In
the case of M/s. Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Limited Vs.
Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) and Anr. (2011) 183 DLT 712, it
was held that even service of summons in the suit can be treated
as a notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act.
19. As per the defence taken by the defendants defendant no.2
being partner of defendant no.1 is residing in the suit property
since the year 2019 and owing to the mutual trust built over many
years defendant no.2 entered into oral agreement to sell. Defendant
no.2 has not denied that he was inducted as tenant in the suit
property. He further stated that he was making payment of
Rs.1,00,000/-per month towards sale consideration. And that
defendant has paid Rs. 51 lacs as earnest money to Mr. Kuldeep
Singh Verma for the purchase of second floor of the property. No
reason is given as to why no earnest money was given for the suit
property. As per the claim of defendant no.2 he is residing in the
suit property being purchaser of the property. However, there is no
written agreement to sell. No receipt towards payment of any
earnest money or part payment of the sale consideration amount is
placed on record. In reply defendant no.2 has stated that he was
making payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards sale consideration,
however, during the course of arguments, it is admitted on behalf
of defendant no.2 that Rs. 1 lac per month is being paid towards
CS No. 19/25 Shri Ravi Shankar Dabas & Anr. v. Grandlay Electricals Indian & Anr. Pages 12/14
-- 12 of 14 --
rent. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that
present rate of rent of the similarly situated properties in the area is
approximately Rs. 4 lacs and thus, defendant no.2 is deliberately
delaying the proceedings in the present case to enjoy the suit
property at much lesser rent.
20. Defendant no.2 has nowhere specified as to what was the
agreed time period for execution of the sale deed for the impugned
properties. As per defendant no.2, the suit for specific performance
is filed only regarding second floor of the property against Mr.
Kuldeep Singh. No satisfactory reason is mentioned for not filing
suit for specific performance for the suit property i.e. the property
of the plaintiff.
21. Thus, in conspectus of facts, it is safely concluded that the
defendant has not disclosed any defence which gives rise to
disputed question of fact with regard to the relief of possession.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present suit
is liable to be decreed for the relief of possession in view of the
admissions made by the defendant no.2 by exercising jurisdiction
under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC.
22. The defendants are hereby directed to handover vacant
possession of the property bearing No. B-1/17, Vasant Vihar, 1st
Floor with half terrace rights alongwith one car parking in
CS No. 19/25 Shri Ravi Shankar Dabas & Anr. v. Grandlay Electricals Indian & Anr. Pages 13/14
-- 13 of 14 --
driveway and one servant quarter with common WC on terrace
measuring 600 Sq. Yards to the plaintiffs.
23. Accordingly, application u/O 12 Rule 6 of CPC moved on
behalf of plaintiff is disposed of as allowed.
24. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
(Announced in the open Court
on 19.01.2026)
(MEENU KAUSHIK)
District Judge-03, New Delhi
District, Patiala House Courts
New Delhi
CS No. 19/25 Shri Ravi Shankar Dabas & Anr. v. Grandlay Electricals Indian & Anr. Pages 14/14
-- 14 of 14 --