Interim Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS SCJ 574/25 Page no. 1 of 7
CS SCJ 574/25
Pawan Kumar Chawla Vs. Madhu Khurana
08.06.2026
Argued by : Sh. Mahesh Kumar and Sh. Lalit Kumar , Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Ms. Smriti Maheshwari, ld LAC for defendant through VC.
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the arguments under order 12 rule 6 CPC.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the plaint are that the plaintiff is the owner of
the property i.e., H. No. 1216, Rani Bagh, Delhi-110034 and the first floor
of the H. No. 1216, Rani Bagh, Delhi-110034 (hereinafter referred as Suit
property) was given on rent to the defendant on 07.09.2022 for a period of
11 months at the rent of Rs. 12,000/- per month. It is stated that after the
expiry of said period of 11 months, the plaintiff requested the defendant to
vacate the suit property however the same was not vacated despite issuance
of legal notice. As such the present suit has been filed seeking eviction of
the defendant from the suit property and injunction so as to restrain the
defendant from creating any third party interest in the suit property.
3. WS has been filed by the defendant whereby she has admitted that she is a
tenant of the plaintiff at the suit property, however she has denied receiving
any communication from the plaintiff to evict the suit property. It is stated
that no cause of action ever arose in favour of the plaintiff and all the
allegations levelled are baseless. It is stated that the plaintiff has not
approached this court with clean hands and is making stories in the Court.
As such it is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
-- 1 of 7 --
CS SCJ 574/25 Page no. 2 of 7
4. After filing of this WS, the plaintiff has field a replication and thereafter
has argued that his suit be decreed under order 12 rule 6 CPC. The plaintiff
has stated that the defendant had admitted in her WS regarding her being a
tenant of the plaintiff and even the rate of rent is not disputed. Hence, it is
prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed qua the relief of eviction
based on the said admission of the defendant.
5. Also a separate application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking directions
to the defendant to pay rent of 7 months.
6. Arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties regarding order 12 rule
6 CPC. Record perused.
7. The defendant has admitted the para 1,2 and 3 of the plaint whereby it was
stated that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the defendant
is his tenant for a rent of Rs. 12,000/- per month. It is a settled law that the
notice of suit for eviction is as good as a notice for termination of tenancy.
8. Before disposing the present arguments on merits, it is pertinent to
reproduce provision of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, which is as follow:
“Judgement 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
-- 2 of 7 --
CS SCJ 574/25 Page no. 3 of 7
parties, make such order or given such
judgement as it may think fit, having regard to
such admissions.
(2) Whenever a judgement is pronounced under
sub-rule (1), a decree shall be drawn up in
accordance with the judgement and the decree
shall bear the date on which the judgement was
pronounced.”
9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Payal Vision Ltd. vs. Radhika Chaudhary,
(2012) 11 SCC 405, has observed with respect to two aspects that are
required to pass the judgment on admission under order 12 rule 6 CPC,
relevant para of which is as follows:
"7. In a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant
whose tenancy is not protected under the provisions
of the Rent Control Act, all that is required to be
established by the plaintiff-landlord is the
existence of the jural relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties and the termination of the
tenancy either by lapse of time or by notice served
by the landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of
Property Act. So long as these two aspects are not in
dispute the Court can pass a decree in terms of Order
XII Rule 6 of the CPC.”
-- 3 of 7 --
CS SCJ 574/25 Page no. 4 of 7
10. In the judgement
of Pradeep Khanna vs Renu Khetarpal (2015) 219 DLT
417, Hon’ble Delhi High Court had observed, in relation to the plea of non-
service of tenancy termination notice to the tenant, that:
“26.8 A self-serving denial by the defendant and
more so in these types of cases, cannot hold back the
Court from exercising its jurisdiction to decree a
suit under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Raising a plea of non-receipt of notice to
quit and seeking an issue on it is obviously to drag
on the litigation and keep on holding to the suit
property without having to pay the current market
rentals, is not sufficient to raise an issue and,
therefore, liable to be rejected.
26.9 If such a plea of denial of notice is treated as
sufficient to non-suit the plaintiff, the plaintiff will
have serve a fresh notice to quit and then bring a
fresh suit where again the defendant would deny
the receipt of notice to seek an issue and trial. The
process would go on repeating itself with another
notice, in fact, repeat ad-infinitum and in this
manner, the defendant will be able to effectively stay
indefinitely till the plaintiff settles with him for a
price. The Court cannot remain a silent spectator and
allow the abuse of process of law. The eyes of the
Courts are wide enough to see the truth and do
justice so that the faith of the people in the institution
of Courts is not lost.
-- 4 of 7 --
CS SCJ 574/25 Page no. 5 of 7
26.10 In view the amendment brought about to
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act by Act 3
of 2003, no objection with regard to termination of
tenancy is permitted on the ground that the legal
notice did not validly terminate the tenancy by a
notice ending with the expiry of the tenancy month, as
long as a period of 15 days was otherwise given to the
tenant to vacate the property. The intention of
Legislature is therefore clear that technical
objections should not be permitted to defeat the decree
for possession of tenanted premises once the tenant
has a period of 15 days for vacating the tenanted
premises.
26.11 A suit for possession cannot be dismissed on the
ground of invalidity of notice of termination because
the tenant is only entitled to a reasonable time of 15
days to vacate the property. Therefore, even if the
notice of termination is held to be invalid, service of
summons of the suit for possession can be taken as
notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property
Act read with Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil
Procedure but in that event the landlord would be
entitled to mesne profits after the expiry of 15 days
from the date of the receipt of summons and not from
the date of notice of termination.”
-- 5 of 7 --
CS SCJ 574/25 Page no. 6 of 7
11. In view of above discussion, it is settled law that to obtain the vacant
possession of a suit property, the plaintiff / landlord has to prove the
existence of landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and
defendant, the service of the legal notice under Section 106 Transfer of
Property Act 1882 and the fact that the tenancy is outside the scope of
protection of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958. In the case at hand, the
defendant has admitted in her written statement that the plaintiff is the
landlord of the suit property and that the defendant is a tenant in the suit
premises. Further, the defendant has admitted for paying rent @ Rs.
12,000/- per month to the plaintiff which is outside the purview of DRC
Act. Accordingly, the landlord and tenant relationship between the
defendant and the plaintiff is admitted.
12.Further, the tenancy is not protected under Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 as
the rent of the suit premises is more than Rs. 3500/- per month. The
defendant has admitted in his written statement the factum of tenancy at
monthly rent of Rs. 12,000/- per month.
13. Further, the defendant has denied receipt of any legal notice which was
sent by the plaintiff to terminate his tenancy. However, in absence of any
written agreement, the summons of the present suit which was duly served
upon the defendant, has to be considered as a notice of termination of
tenancy and the statutory period i.e., 15 days as per section 106 TPA and 1
month as per the clause 9 of rent agreement has already elapsed. Hence,
the tenancy of the defendant is deemed to be terminated.
-- 6 of 7 --
CS SCJ 574/25 Page no. 7 of 7
14.In view of these observations, the contention of the plaintiff qua the relief
of eviction under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is allowed. A decree of possession
qua the suit premises is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant. The Defendant and her family members are directed to
handover and deliver the actual, physical vacant and peaceful possession
of the suit property i.e. the first floor of the H. No. 1216, Rani Bagh,
Delhi-110034 to the plaintiff within 1 month from today.
15. Needless to say, the allegation made by plaintiff regarding non-payment
of arrears of rent by defendant, and the reply of the defendant if any can
only be considered at the time of adjudication of the claim of the plaintiff
pertaining to claim of arrears of rent.
16. Part decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
(Vaibhav Kumar)
Civil Judge/N-W District
08.06.2026
-- 7 of 7 --