Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MR. SATYABRATA PANDA, DJ-04,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS 360-24
Virendar Singh And Anr Vs. Sunny Dhingra
04.10.2025
Present: Sh. Sandeep Khatri Ujjwal Bhardwaj, Ld. counsels
for plaintiff through VC.
None for defendant.
None has appeared on behalf of the defendant.
Be awaited.
(SATYABRATA PANDA)
District Judge-04
Judge Code- DL01057
PHC/New Delhi/04.10.2025
At 12:30 pm
Present: Sh. Sandeep Khatri Ujjwal Bhardwaj, Ld. counsels
for plaintiff through VC.
None for defendant.
None has appeared on behalf of the defendant.
Be awaited.
(SATYABRATA PANDA)
District Judge-04
Judge Code- DL01057
PHC/New Delhi/04.10.2025
At 2:30 pm
Present: Sh. Sandeep Khatri Ujjwal Bhardwaj, Ld. counsels
for plaintiff through VC.
None for defendant.
CS No. 360-24
	Virendar Singh And Anr Vs. Sunny Dhingra
Page 1 of 8
-- 1 of 8 --
ORDER (ORAL)
1. None has appeared on behalf of the defendant despite
repeated calls.
2. Heard submissions of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff on the
application u/o 12 Rule 6 CPC.
3. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession,
mesne profits and permanent injunction.
4. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is
summarised as follows. The plaintiffs are the joint owners
of the suit property being DDA Flat No. 4029, Third Floor,
Sector B, Pocket 5 and 6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070
by virtue of sale deed dated 10.04.2019. The plaintiffs had
leased out the suit property to the defendant and had
executed the lease agreement dated 08.11.2021. The
tenancy was for a period of 11 months and was to expire
on 06.10.2022. Even after the lease expired in October
2022, with the mutual consent of the parties, the defendant
was allowed to occupy the premises on the terms and
conditions as mentioned in the lease agreement dated
08.11.2021 and further on payment of enhanced rent. The
last paid rent by the defendant was Rs. 30,800/- in April,
2024. The defendant did not pay the rent from May, 2024
onwards. The plaintiffs required the suit property and had
conveyed their intentions to the defendant since October,
2023 and had asked the defendant to hand over the
peaceful and vacate possession. However, the defendant
CS No. 360-24
	Virendar Singh And Anr Vs. Sunny Dhingra
Page 2 of 8
-- 2 of 8 --
had been delaying the handing over of the possession on
one pretext or the other. Ultimately, the plaintiffs issued
notice dated 01.05.2024 asking the defendant to hand over
the possession of the suit property. To the shock and
surprise of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs received a reply
dated 11.06.2024 in which the defendant made a bogus
and baseless allegation that an oral agreement existed
between the parties. The plaintiff also made a complaint on
03.07.2024 against the defendant to the SHO, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi. The defendant failed to vacate the suit
property and hand over the vacate and peaceful possession.
On this basis, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit
seeking possession as well as arrears of rent and
mesne
profits and permanent injunction.
5. The defendant has filed his written statement seeking
dismissal of the suit. In the written statement, the
defendant has admitted that the parties had executed the
lease agreement dated 08.11.2021 in respect of the suit
property for a period of 11 months which was valid till
06.10.2022. It is further stated in the written statement that
after expiry of the lease agreement, it was decided to
continue the lease with 5 per cent annual hike. It is further
stated that in the year 2023, the plaintiffs intended to sell
the suit property and that the defendant had shown interest
in purchasing the suit property. It is further stated that after
many meetings and talks, the price of the flat was decided
as Rs. 1.10 Crores payable to the plaintiffs over five years.
It is further stated that later due to hike of property rates or
CS No. 360-24
	Virendar Singh And Anr Vs. Sunny Dhingra
Page 3 of 8
-- 3 of 8 --
better rate proposals, the plaintiffs broke the oral
agreement and sent legal notice to vacate the premises
dated 11.05.2024. It is stated that the termination of the
agreement was bad in law.
6. The plaintiffs have filed the application u/o 12 Rule 6 CPC
seeking judgment on admission to the extent of possession
of the suit property.
7. Ld. counsel for plaintiffs has submitted that in the written
statement, the defendant has clearly admitted the landlord-
tenant relationship between the parties. It is submitted that
the defendant had admitted the lease agreement dated
08.11.2021 in respect of the suit property which was for a
period of 11 months. It is further submitted that the
defendant has also admitted in the written statement that
even after expiry of this lease agreement, the lease was
continued by mutual consent. It is further submitted that
the defendant has also admitted the receipt of the legal
notice dated 11.05.2024 asking the defendant to vacate the
suit property. It is submitted that hence, the defendant has
admitted the landlord-tenant relationship between the
parties and has also admitted that the plaintiffs had issued
the notice to vacate the suit property dated 11.05.2024. It
is submitted that after the expiry of the lease agreement
dated 08.11.2021 on 06.10.2022, the lease had continued
only on a month-to-month basis. It is submitted that hence,
the plaintiffs would be entitled to decree of possession u/o
12 Rule 6 CPC. Ld. counsel has further submitted that the
CS No. 360-24
	Virendar Singh And Anr Vs. Sunny Dhingra
Page 4 of 8
-- 4 of 8 --
defence which was taken by the defendant in the written
statement that there was an alleged oral agreement to sell
between the plaintiffs and the defendant was wholly bogus
and baseless. It is submitted that there was no occasion for
the plaintiffs to sell the suit property to the defendant, who
was a tenant, and that too for a sale consideration which
was to be paid over a course of 5 years. It is submitted that
this allegation of the defendant was implausible. It is
further submitted that, in any case, since the alleged oral
agreement was not in writing and was neither registered
nor stamped, the defendant could not seek to remain in
possession even on the basis of the doctrine of part
performance u/s 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. It is
submitted that hence, the defendant has no defence to the
plaintiffs’ claim for possession of the suit property and that
judgment on admission may be granted u/o 12 Rule 6
CPC.
8. I have considered the submission of the Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff and I have perused the record.
9. A perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant
shows that the defendant has clearly admitted the landlord-
tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and the
defendant. In paragraph 4 of the written statement, the
defendant has clearly admitted the lease agreement dated
08.11.2021 and the fact that it was valid for a period of 11
months till 06.10.2022. In paragraph 6 of the written
statement, the defendant has stated that the lease
CS No. 360-24
	Virendar Singh And Anr Vs. Sunny Dhingra
Page 5 of 8
-- 5 of 8 --
agreement was continued with 5 per cent hike even after
its expiry. Hence, the defendant has clearly admitted that
he had come into the suit property as a tenant of the
plaintiffs and that the lease agreement had expired on
06.10.2022, and that thereafter, the lease had continued
upon a mutual understanding of the parties. Thus, there is
a clear admission that the lease had expired on 06.10.2022.
The continuance of the lease thereafter could only have
been on a month-to-month basis which could have been
terminated by notice. In paragraph 7, the defendant has
also admitted receipt of the legal notice dated 11.05.2024
calling upon the defendant to vacate the suit property.
10. The defendant has sought to raise the defence that there
was an oral agreement between the parties whereby the
plaintiffs had agreed to sell the suit property to the
defendant for consideration of Rs. 1.10 Crores to be paid
over 5 years, however, this averment cannot protect the
possession of the defendant. Firstly, it seems implausible
that a person would agree to sell his property to the tenant
at a sale consideration which would be paid by the
tenant/purchaser over a period of 5 years, and this defence
appears to be a frivolous and moonshine defence. In any
case, a purchaser under an agreement to sale would be able
to protect his possession only on the basis of the doctrine
of part performance u/s 53-A of the Transfer of Property
Act, however, for such a defence to be effective, the
agreement to sale has to be in writing and must be
registered and duly stamped. This is the mandate of
CS No. 360-24
	Virendar Singh And Anr Vs. Sunny Dhingra
Page 6 of 8
-- 6 of 8 --
Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act read with
Section 17 (1A) of the Registration Act and Article 23-A
of the Schedule I of the Stamp Act (as applicable to Delhi).
Since, in the present case, it is not even the case of the
defendant that there was any agreement to sell in writing
which was duly registered and stamped, hence, the
defendant has no defence to the plaintiffs’ claim for
possession.
(See Mohd. Ansar Siddiqui v. Varun Sachdeva,
2025 SCC OnLine Del 2201)
11. Thus, the defendant has no defence to the relief of
possession, and accordingly, the application by the
plaintiff u/o 12 Rule 6 CPC is allowed.
12. Decree is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendant for possession of the suit property being DDA
Flat No. 4029, Third Floor, Sector B, Pocket 5 and 6,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.
13. Let the decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
14. At this stage, Ld. counsel for plaintiff has requested for
some time to file replication.
15. Let replication be filed within 15 days with advance copy
to the other side.
16. Both parties are directed to file the affidavits of admission
and denial of documents within 15 days with advance copy
to the other side.
CS No. 360-24
	Virendar Singh And Anr Vs. Sunny Dhingra
Page 7 of 8
-- 7 of 8 --
17. Both the parties are directed to file the list of proposed
issues on or before the NDOH with advance copy to the
other side.
18. Relist for settlement of issues on 10.11.2025.
(SATYABRATA PANDA)
District Judge-04
Judge Code- DL01057
PHC/New Delhi/04.10.2025
CS No. 360-24
	Virendar Singh And Anr Vs. Sunny Dhingra
Page 8 of 8
-- 8 of 8 --