Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS SCJ No.1007/25 Harish Kumar vs Anil Kumar Page No. 1 of 8
IN THE COURT OF JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Nitish Kumar Sharma
CS SCJ No. 1007/2025
Harish Kumar
…..Plaintiff
Versus
Anil Kumar
…….Defendant
ORDER
13.11.2025
1. The present suit has been filed by plaintiff seeking
relief of ejection of his tenant and an injunction against him
restraining him from creating any third party interest in the
suit property.
2. Brief facts of the present case as per plaint are -
(a) The plaintiff, Sh. Harish Kumar, claims to be the sole
and absolute owner of property bearing No. H-1/3, Gali No.
30, 2nd Floor, Mahindra Park, Delhi–110033, measuring
about 33 square yards. It is stated that the said premises,
comprising one room set on the second floor, was let out to
-- 1 of 8 --
CS SCJ No.1007/25 Harish Kumar vs Anil Kumar Page No. 2 of 8
the defendant, Sh. Anil Kumar, for residential purposes at a
monthly rent of 5,000, exclusive of electricity and water	₹
charges, under a Rent Agreement dated 08.10.2018 executed
for a period of eleven months. The defendant had also
deposited a sum of 5,000 as security.	₹
(b) It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant
became a habitual defaulter in payment of rent, despite
repeated demands, and that the rent was later mutually
enhanced to 6,200 per month. It is further alleged that the	₹
tenancy was purely residential and that the defendant has no
right to sublet, assign, or part with possession of the premises
without the plaintiff’s written permission.
(c) The plaintiff asserts that despite several requests and
visits, the defendant failed to vacate the premises and instead
caused nuisance and extended threats, compelling the
plaintiff to lodge complaints with the DCP, Ashok Vihar and
SHO, PS Mahindra Park on 24.10.2024 and 15.03.2025,
respectively. The plaintiff thereafter forfeited the security
deposit and terminated the tenancy by serving a legal notice
dated01.09.2025.
(d) It is further averred that instead of vacating the
premises, the defendant instituted a false civil suit for
injunction against the plaintiff to obstruct his lawful
possession. As the defendant did not vacate the suit property,
this suit has been filed.
-- 2 of 8 --
CS SCJ No.1007/25 Harish Kumar vs Anil Kumar Page No. 3 of 8
3. Written statement has been filed today wherein the
defendant has admitted that he is a tenant of the plaintiff in
the suit property and that a rent agreement for a period of 11
months was executed between them on 08.10.2018. It is also
admitted that rate of rent was initially Rs 5,000/ per month
and was later increased to Rs 6200/ per month. It is
contended that the plaintiff has wrongfully claimed that
defendant defaulted in making the payment of rent and it is
asserted that the defendant has been regularly paying the
rent.
It is further contended that no notice qua termination
of tenancy was received by the defendant and that security
deposit of the defendant was illegally deducted by plaintiff.
4. I have heard the submissions made today and perused
the record carefully.
5. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that it is trite
law that issues arise when a material proposition of fact is
affirmed by one party and denied by the other. The Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in
Anil Kumar vs Devender Kumar and
Ors in an order passed on 21.05.2019, has held that :
‘if a material proposition of
fact or law is not denied and
the same persuades the
Judge in forming an opinion
that there was an admission
by necessary implication, no
such issues need to be
framed and there is no
-- 3 of 8 --
CS SCJ No.1007/25 Harish Kumar vs Anil Kumar Page No. 4 of 8
requirement for recording of
evidence on those issues’.
6. It is time and again observed by Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi that the Courts should not mechanically put all suits
to trial, when outcome thereof is not dependent upon any
factual adjudication.
7. While referring to provisions u/o XII Rule 6 CPC, it
has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as
Kapahi and Others vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and
Another, (2010) 4 SCC 753 that :-
“In the 54th Law Commission Report,
an amendment was suggested to
enable the Court to give a judgment
not only on the application of a party
but on its own motion. It is thus clear
that the amendment was brought about
to further the ends of justice and give
these provisions a wider sweep by
empowering judges to use it `ex debito
justitiae, a Latin term, meaning a debt
of justice. In our opinion the thrust of
the amendment is that in an
appropriate case, a party, on the
admission of the other party, can press
for judgment, as a matter of legal right.
However, the Court always retains its
discretion in the matter of
pronouncing judgment.
8. It has been further held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court
in the case titled as Delhi Jal Board vs Surendra P. Malik 104
(2003) DLT 151 (DB) that the only pre requisite for passing a
-- 4 of 8 --
CS SCJ No.1007/25 Harish Kumar vs Anil Kumar Page No. 5 of 8
decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is that there must be
admission of fact arising in the suit, be that in the pleadings
or otherwise or orally or in writing and that the admissions
must be clear and unequivocal, unconditional and
unambiguous. Further, the admissions need not be made
specifically or expressly and could be a constructive
admission as well. So it is not required in law that admission
only has to be in the pleadings.
9. Furthermore in a case titled as Keshav Chander
Thakur & Anr. Vs. Krishan Chander & Ors. 211 (2014) DLT
149 (DB), it was similarly held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court
that :-
“However, in our view given the
nature of pleadings and admitted
documents on record and the
extensive arguments advanced by the
parties on the issues discussed herein,
this was a fit case for the Court to
exercise powers under Order XII
Rule 6 CPC where the Court has
powers to suo moto pass a judgment.
There is no requirement in Order XII
Rule 6 CPC for filing of a formal
application. The Court can on its own
motion without any application by a
party proceed to pass a decree on
admissions as stated in Order XII
Rule 6 CPC.”
-- 5 of 8 --
CS SCJ No.1007/25 Harish Kumar vs Anil Kumar Page No. 6 of 8
10. In the instant suit, the plaintiff has categorically
stated that he is the landlord of the suit property i.e. H-1/3,
Gali No. 30, 2nd Floor, Mahindra Park, Delhi–110033,
measuring about 33 square yards and that the defendant was
inducted as a tenant by him in the year 2018. The only
defence taken in the written statement is that no notice u/s
106 of Transfer of Property Act was received by the
defendant. However, the said defence also does not help the
defendant as it has been held in
Nopany Investments (P) Ltd.
vs. Santokh Singh (HUF) 2008 (2) SCC 728 that serving of
summons was sufficient notice as required U/s 106 of TPA.
Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court made in case titled as
Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. vs M/s Jasbir Singh
Chadha ( HUF) 182 (2011) DLT 402 has held as under -
“ Once we take the service of
plaint in the suit to the
defendant as a notice
terminating tenancy, the
provision of Order 7 Rule 7
CPC can then be applied to take
notice of subsequent facts and
hold that tenancy will stand
terminated after 15 days of
receipt of service of summons.
”
and while discussing object of
15 days notice observed -
“This rationale ought to apply
because after all the only object
of giving a notice U/s 106 of
TPA is to give 15 days to the
tenant to make alternative
arrangements. In my opinion,
therefore, the argument that
-- 6 of 8 --
CS SCJ No.1007/25 Harish Kumar vs Anil Kumar Page No. 7 of 8
tenancy has not been validly
terminated, and the suit could
not have been filed, fails for this
reason also. In this regard, I am
keeping in view the amendment
brought about to Section 106 of
TPA by Act 3 of 2003 and as per
which amendment no objection
with regard to termination of
tenancy is permitted on the
ground that legal notice did not
validly terminate the tenancy, as
long as a period of 15 days was
otherwise given to the tenant to
vacate. The intention of the
legislature is therefore clear that
technical objections should not
be permitted to defeat
substantial justice.”
11. Thus, in the considered opinion of this court, in light
of the settled legal position no material issue arises in the
present suit and accordingly, it is a fit case to pass a decree
u/o XII Rule 6 CPC.
12. The present suit was filed on 26.09.2025 and
summons of the suit were served upon the defendant on
27.09.2025 itself and thus, in view of the above, the tenancy
stood terminated after 15 days thereof. As per Section 108 (q)
of TPA, a lessee is under obligation to vacate the tenanted
property and hand over the possession to landlord/lessor on
termination of tenancy. Thus, in view of the termination of
tenancy, defendant is liable to vacate the property and being
-- 7 of 8 --
CS SCJ No.1007/25 Harish Kumar vs Anil Kumar Page No. 8 of 8
tenant, he cannot create any third party right in the suit
property.
13. The suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed in the
following terms:
(i) The defendant is directed to vacate the suit property
i.e. H-1/3, Gali No. 30, 2nd Floor, Mahindra Park, Delhi–
110033, measuring about 33 square yards within 30 days
from today.
(ii) The defendant is permanently restrained from
creating any third party interest in the suit property i.e.
H-1/3, Gali No. 30, 2nd Floor, Mahindra Park, Delhi–110033.
14. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
15. File be consigned to record room after due
compliance.
(Nitish Kumar Sharma)
JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
North Rohini, Courts,Delhi/13.11.2025
-- 8 of 8 --