Final Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF DR. PANKAJ SHARMA, DISTRICT JUDGE – 02/
WAQF TRIBUNAL, NEW DISTRICT DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS 318/25
CNR No. DLND-01- 005039-2025
IN THE MATTER OF :
Pankaj Agrawal
S/o Late Sh. Hiralal Agrawal,
R/o 68, Brighton Park Dr.,
St. Charles, MO 63303,
United States of America
Through his General Power of Attorney,
Sh. Shekhar Ladia
S/o Sh. Kailash Prasad Ladia,
R/o Shyam Sweets Confectionary,
Shop No. LG-1, I.E Sahibadad,
S.O Ghaziabad, uttar Pradesh-201010
Mob No. 9811096980
… Plaintiff
VERSUS
Manoj Kumar
S/o Sh. Sita Ram,
R/o Flat No. 163,
Ground Floor, Block Kaveri,
Sector-D, Pocket-6,
CS 318/2025
Pankaj Agrawal Vs. Manoj Kumar 1 / 11
-- 1 of 11 --
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110 070
Mobile No. 9466664736 ... Defendant
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the application U/O XII Rule 6 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as CPC), filed by
the plaintiff seeking judgment on the basis of admissions made by
defendant in his written statement and the documents relied upon by him.
2. The brief facts set out in the application is that the plaintiff has filed a
present suit for ejectment against defendant (tenant). Thereafter
defendant has filed written statement on 27.08.2025 and in the written
statement admits the existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant
between the plaintiff (the landlord) and defendant (tenant).
3. It is averred that the defendant, in paragraph no.7 of the written
statement, submits that the plaintiff being a landlord and a citizen of the
US ought to have disclosed a bona-fide need of the leased premises in
India in his suit for ejectment against the defendant (a tenant). It is
further averred by defendant in the same paragraph that the term of the
‘duration period’ of the lease agreement expires on 20.02.2026. It is
further averred that defendant has filed this lease agreement dated
26.03.2025 entered into between the plaintiff as lessor and the defendant
CS 318/2025
Pankaj Agrawal Vs. Manoj Kumar 2 / 11
-- 2 of 11 --
as lessee alongwith its written statement, and relied upon it to submit that
the plaintiff can not request for recovery of possession of the suit
property or leased premises unless the plaintiff presents a bona-fide need
of the premises or until its term expires as stipulated in the clause 2.
4. It is further averred that defendant in paragraph no. 4(e) and paragraph
no.10 of his written statement categorically admits that the defendant
signed the lease agreement dated 26.03.2025 as lessee in respect of the
suit premises for a term extendable to 11 months for a monthly rent of
Rs.25,000/-. It is further averred that the plaintiff has filed the instant suit
for ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises primarily relying
upon the terms and conditions agreed upon in this lease agreement. It is
further averred that the defendant clearly admits to his signature on every
page of agreement describing him as a lessee.
5. It is further averred that the defendant in paragraph no. 4 (h) of his
written statement, further clearly admits that the defendant was paying
monthly rent of Rs.25,000/- in respect of the suit premises to the
plaintiff. This amounts to unequivocal admission on the part of the
defendant of his intention to be bound by the obligations under the lease
agreement. It is further averred that the defendant, in the same paragraph,
further not only admits to have constructive possession of the suit
premises, but also clearly admits to protect its actual or physical
CS 318/2025
Pankaj Agrawal Vs. Manoj Kumar 3 / 11
-- 3 of 11 --
possession when the legitimacy of its possession by the relatives of the
defendant was questioned by the police. It is further averred that further
admittedly the rent amount is Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, the tenancy is not
protected under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
6. It is further averred that the defendant has filed a document described as
‘Reply by Ms. Ritu dated 15.04.2025’ alongwith his written statement.
The defendant in paras 4(a) and 4(e) of his written statement, submits
that Ms. Ritu is the defendant’s relative, that the plaintiff entered into an
agreement to sell the suit premises with her (Ms. Ritu), and that the
plaintiff accordingly handed over its possession to her. However, Mr.
Ritu in paragraph no.7 of this document (‘Reply by Ms. Ritu dated
15.04.2025) in no uncertain words herself states that the defendant
entered into the lease agreement dated 25.03.2025 with the plaintiff. It is
further averred that filing of this document by the defendant alongwith
his written statement to rely upon its contents, clearly, amounts to
categorical admission that the defendant entered into a lease agreement
with the plaintiff on 25.03.2025. The said para is extracted here for this
Hon’ble’s Court kind perusal:
“ That your client on mutual understanding with our client had further entered into
the lease agreement dated 25.03.2025 with one Mr. Manoj Kumar (brother-in-law) of
our client and your client had showed his bona-fide that he will not sell the property
to anyone till this agreement exists and because of his conduct our client considers it
CS 318/2025
Pankaj Agrawal Vs. Manoj Kumar 4 / 11
-- 4 of 11 --
safe that the possession is safe as far as our client is concerned”
7. It is further averred that defendant in para 8 of his written statement
submits that since this suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is
essentially a suit between a landlord and a tenant, it is incorrectly valued.
Further defendant submits that it should have been valued according to
the amount of the rent of the immovable property payable for the next
year before the date of the presenting the plaint. The submission further
amounts to categorical admission on the part of the defendant of the
existence of a jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the
plaintiff-landlord and the defendant-tenant. It is further averred that
defendant in para 4(p) and para 13 of his written statement also clearly
admits to have received the notice dated 27.05.2025 issued by the
plaintiff terminating the said lease agreement and calling upon the
defendant to vacate the suit premises.
8. The following judgments have been relied upon by the plaintiff in
support of her contention:-
(i) Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Naryan Jaiswal 2025 SCC On Line SC
751.
(ii) Payal Vision Limited v. Radhika Chaudhary (2012) 11 SCC 405,
(iii) Abhishek Chauhan v. Krishan Lal Dhooper 2014 SCC On Line
Del 6904
CS 318/2025
Pankaj Agrawal Vs. Manoj Kumar 5 / 11
-- 5 of 11 --
(iv) Sushil Ansal v. Charanjit Singh Sole Proprietor, Charmis
Enterprises 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4710
9. On behalf of defendant, reply has not been filed to the present
application. However, the application is opposed submitting that same is
misconceived, untenable in law and same is based on deliberate mis-
reading and selective extraction of a few isolated averments from the
written statement while consciously ignoring the substantive and
consistent stand taken therein. It is submitted that plaintiff has
mischievously sought to treat a qualified and conditional factual
narration as an unequivocal admission which is contrary to the principles
of Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Ld. Counsel for defendant has contended that
inconsistent on alternative pleas can be made in written statement and
relied upon the following judgment:
(i) Baldev Singh and Ors Vs. Manohar Singh and Another (2006) 6
Supreme Court Cases 498.
and further relied upon the following judgment:
(i) Rajesh Mitra alias Rajesh Kumar Mitra and Anr Vs. Karnani
Properties Ltd reported as Civil Appeal Nos 3593-3594 for 2024.
10.I have heard the arguments of both the counsels for the parties and have
perused the material on record.
CS 318/2025
Pankaj Agrawal Vs. Manoj Kumar 6 / 11
-- 6 of 11 --
11. Before adverting to the facts of the case, the law relating to the powers
of the court U/O XII Rule 6 CPC has been expounded in the following
judgments:-
It has been held in “Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. Vs Union Bank of
India and Ors.” AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2740 that discretion under
Order XII Rule 6 of CPC can be exercised by the court even in the absence
of an application. The observation made in the matter are as under:
“12. As to the object of the Order XII, Rule 6 we need not say anything
more than what the legislature itself has said when the said provision
came to be amended. In the objects and reasons set out while
amending the said rule, it is stated 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 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. - We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule
as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where
other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to
succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission
of facts in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making such
admission to succeed. Textually, there is nothing in Order 12 Rule 6
which limits the powers of the Court to await the application of the
party seeking a decree. A decree can be conveniently and expeditiously
drawn even in the absence of an application by the party seeking it
and if the requisite condition spelt out in the provision exists.”
It has been held in “Amit Kumar Vs Amit Kumar” FAO (OS)
589/2015 NCM No.24212/2015, decided on 23.11.2015 by a Division
Bench of High Court of Delhi that the court while considering the
applicability of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC has to consider whether the
so called defence raised by the defendant is plausible or is completely
sham. It was observed that merely because the defendant denies the
claim of the plaintiff would not ipso facto imply that there is a defence
raised by the plaintiff that requires framing of issues and relegating
the parties to trial. It was held that merely because defendant raises
CS 318/2025
Pankaj Agrawal Vs. Manoj Kumar 7 / 11
-- 7 of 11 --
some dispute, it cannot be said that there is no unequivocal admission.
It was observed in Uttam Singh Duggal & Company Ltd.’s case
(supra) that no trial is required in the matter where the defence raised
is a moonshine.
12. As per the mandate of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the powers are vested with
the courts to pronounce judgment on the basis of such admissions made
in the pleadings without waiting for the determination of other questions
in the suit. Where the admissions are voluntarily made by the defendant
in his pleadings, which are specific unequivocal and clear, the plaintiff is
entitled for judgment on the basis of admissions made by him in his
written statement.
13. As per the facts, plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property i.e.
Flat no.163, Ground floor, block Kaveri, Sector-D, Pocket VI, Vasant
Kunj, New Delhi. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for eviction of
the defendant from the suit property on the premised that the suit
property was leased out to the defendant and vide legal notice dated
27.05.2025, the lease has been terminated. The plaintiff has relied upon
the lease agreement dated 26.03.2025 entered between the parties for
termination of the lease. The said lease was in favour of the defendant for
the suit premises for using it for residential purpose having tenure of 11
months from 21.03.2025 to 20.02.2026 @ Rs.25,000/- per month as rent.
There was no locking period as per the lease agreement and as per clause
CS 318/2025
Pankaj Agrawal Vs. Manoj Kumar 8 / 11
-- 8 of 11 --
16 of the said agreement, both the parties reserved their rights to
determine and terminate the tenancy by serving one month’s notice.
14. The defendant has pleaded that he is not in possession of the suit
property and plaintiff never handed over the suit property to the
defendant as defendant never met the plaintiff. Further plaintiff and
Ms. Ritu had entered into an agreement to sell on 21.01.2025 for a total
consideration of INR 1,04,00,000/-. Ms Ritu made a payment of
Rs.10,40,000/- to plaintiff which was mentioned in the agreement to sell
and made further payment of Rs.15,60,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- to
defendant. It is further averred that plaintiff handed over the possession
of the suit property to Ms. Ritu and signed the lease agreement dated
26.03.2025. Thereafter plaintiff refused to execute the sale deed and
police complaint was filed by him. The defendant joined the police
inquiry and thereafter started depositing INR 25,000/- in the account of
plaintiff. Further it is pleaded that Ms Ritu had not been joined as
defendant as such she was a necessary party. Also the plaintiff has failed
to disclose the bonafide need as a landlord has to disclose a bonafide
need for a lease premises for seeking eviction. The defendant has denied
signing of lease agreement dated 26.03.2025. However, later admitted
that same was signed by him while sitting at his home in Jhajhar,
Haryana.
CS 318/2025
Pankaj Agrawal Vs. Manoj Kumar 9 / 11
-- 9 of 11 --
15.Having perused the pleadings of both the parties, it is forthcoming that
defendant has made categoric, specific admissions regarding the
relationship between the party i.e. landlord and tenant. It is clear from the
plain reading of the written statement that defendant has admitted that
plaintiff was the landlord and he was the tenant. The execution of lease
agreement dated 26.03.2025 has been admitted by the defendant. The
rent of Rs.25,000/- also stood admitted in clear terms by the defendant.
The excuse of signing the lease agreement at home and deposit of
Rs.25,000/- as layman is baseless. The plaintiff was well within his
rights to have the tenancy terminated as per clause 16 of the lease
agreement and same was done vide legal notice dated 27.05.2025.
Apparently there was no lock-in period in the said lease agreement as
such the tenancy was validly terminated vide notice dated 27.05.2025
sent through registered post, which was received by the defendant on
29.05.2025. The fact that defendant has pleaded that plaintiff was
required to show bonafide need to seek eviction shows that there existed
a relationship of landlord and tenant between them, which has been
evidently clear by the said admission. It is pertinent to note that the
instant suit is for eviction and the said plea of bonafide requirement can
be taken in DRC proceedings which is not applicable to the present
dispute considering the rent amount and other limitations of the DRC
Act. Therefore, in the considered view of this court, owing to the clear ,
specific, unambiguous admissions made by the defendant, the present
suit is liable to be decreed. The plaintiff is entitled for the possession of
CS 318/2025
Pankaj Agrawal Vs. Manoj Kumar 10 / 11
-- 10 of 11 --
the suit property with mesne profits from the termination of the tenancy
till handing over the actual, vacant peaceful possession of the suit
property to the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed.
The instant application is disposed off. Decree sheet be prepared
accordingly.
16.File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Dr. Pankaj Sharma)
DJ-02 & Waqf Tribunal NDD
Announced in the open court on PHC/New Delhi/10.08.2026
10.08.2026
CS 318/2025
Pankaj Agrawal Vs. Manoj Kumar 11 / 11
-- 11 of 11 --