Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS SCJ 936/24
NEENA BHATIA Vs. ANUJ KAPOOR
12.11.2025
Present: Ms. Rema Luthra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
through VC.
Mr. Vishal Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for the defendant
no. 2 through VC.
As per the application under O 12 R 6 CPC and the
submissions made thereupon by all the sides, it is admitted that
the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property (Third Floor,
B-4/197C (mentioned as B-4/197D in the rent agreement dated
28.06.2023), Keshav Puram, Lawrence Road, Delhi-110035),
which was taken on rent @ Rs. 10,000/- per month by the
defendants no. 1 & 2, being husband and wife, the rent
agreement itself having been executed between the plaintiff and
defendant no. 1. Duration of such rent agreement was for 11
months only – 01.07.2023 till 31.05.2024 – and it has admittedly
lapsed by efflux of time. In the meantime however, marital
discord developed between defendants no. 1 and 2 and defendant
no. 1 / husband is seen to have left the rental accommodation
altogether somewhere in the middle of July 2023 and has not
returned ever since. Defendant no. 2 / wife on the other hand has,
as per the plaintiff version, kept afoot, continued to reside at the
suit property. Defendant no. 1 / husband has contested even that
and stated that since long, defendant no. 2 / wife has not been
residing at the suit property and instead, has been living with her
parents elsewhere. Defendant no. 2 / wife has denied such claims.
Nevertheless, due to the inter se disputes between the defendants,
plaintiff has claimed that she and her husband, being senior
citizens, have been extremely inconvenienced, having had to
pg. no. 1/5
-- 1 of 5 --
lodge several police complaints as well for maintaining peace.
Considering the same, the plaintiff has prayed for decreeing of
the suit to the extent that both the defendants must vacate the suit
property, being in actual / constructive possession thereof,
without further ado, the tenancy having been terminated as on
date / having lapsed by efflux of time and due to non payment of
rent. Defendant no. 1 through counsel has reiterated that he is no
longer residing at the suit property. Defendant no. 2 has claimed
that she is residing at the suit property. It has in fact been pointed
by Ld. Counsel on behalf of defendant no. 2 that during another
proceedings, then pending before the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in CRL.MC 7038/2023, with regards residence order
having been passed in favour of the defendant no. 2 qua the
plaintiff property (C-19, First Floor, Acharya Kriplani Road,
Aadarsh Nagar, Delhi-110033), it was undertaken by defendant
no. 1 that previous unpaid rent, if any, shall be cleared by him, by
stating that the rent for such property – the suit property with
which the Court is concerned with in the present application –
was anyways being paid by defendant no. 1. As such therefore,
Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 2 argues that defendant no. 1
and the plaintiff have gotten instituted the present proceedings by
way of collusion to oust defendant no. 2 from the suit property
and the defendant no. 1 has not kept his word either since he has
now stopped paying the rent qua the suit property as well.
The import of O 12 R 6 CPC has been reiterated by
superior courts from time to time. As per the same, the Court can,
either on its own or on application pass judgment in view of
admissions of facts made by the parties in their pleadings or
otherwise, orally or in writing at any stage of the suit. In fact,
pg. no. 2/5
-- 2 of 5 --
such admissions may not be categorical and even constructive
admissions which can be inferred from the facts and
circumstances of the case can form the basis of passing of orders
under O 12 R 6 CPC. The underlying theme of such a provision
is to curtail litigation on agreed aspects of the suit and narrow it
down to points of contention only upon which there are differing
stands of the parties. The Court must not allow unnecessary
litigation to continue on factual aspects which are admitted by
the parties and orders for relief can be passed in that regard
without further ado. (Anar Devi Vs. Nathu Ram (1984) 4 SCC
250)
In Archana Goindi Khandelwal Vs. Rajesh
Balkrishnan Menon, SLP to Appeal (C) No(s). 2939/2022 order
dated 04.03.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically
held that an issue of accommodation in a domestic violence
dispute between husband and wife shall not affect a landlord’s
right to get possession of his property back. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court noted that a landlord, who is otherwise entitled to
a decree of eviction, must not be made to suffer in such a
scenario and the dispute between the spouses shall not preclude
and / or affect the right of the landlord. It was made clear that if
the wife had any grievance against her husband, in respect of
alternate accommodation or otherwise, the same is required to be
adjudicated under appropriate DV Act proceedings or any other
remedy which may be available to her as per law. It is for the
wife in such a scenario to seek such orders as are appropriate.
But that cannot be allowed to scuttle a landlord’s right to secure
possession of his own property. In the present case as well, the
dispute is essentially between the warring defendants / husband
pg. no. 3/5
-- 3 of 5 --
and wife. The tenancy in the name of the husband, created by the
plaintiff landlord, in pursuance of which both the husband and
the wife – the defendants – came to reside in the suit property /
rental accommodation, has already expired. Considering the
same and taking into account the fact that there is no dispute with
regards the landlord tenant relationship as well, there is no
impediment in allowing the plaintiff to get back vacant peaceful
possession of the suit property. Merely because as per defendant
no. 2, the defendant no. 1 has gone back on his word of
continuing to pay rent to the plaintiff or to clear the past
outstanding dues, the defendant no. 2 cannot be allowed to stay
in the suit property indefinitely. Strictly speaking, she was not
even a party to the rent agreement and as such therefore, upon its
termination / lapse, she cannot continue with any right to remain
present in the suit property. Her grievance with regards alternate
accommodation or payment of suitable amount with regards the
same is for her to pursue before the Court of competent
jurisdiction / forum. The defendant no. 1 as well, in a similar
manner, can take his defence that the defendant no. 2 is not liable
to be provided any alternate accommodation since as per him,
defendant no. 2 is now residing at her parent’s home. Contentions
on either side on these lines do not concern the Court in the
present proceedings as they are essentially, of a landlord as
against its tenants. The basic ingredients with regards such
relationship having been admitted / not disputed, no factual
determination is required to be made going forward.
In view of the above, the suit of the plaintiff qua the
relief of possession is hereby Partly Decreed and the application
under O 12 R 6 CPC is hereby Allowed. Decree of possession is
pg. no. 4/5
-- 4 of 5 --
accordingly passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants to handover peaceful / vacant possession of the suit
property (Third Floor, B-4/197C (mentioned as B-4/197D in the
rent agreement dated 28.06.2023), Keshav Puram, Lawrence
Road, Delhi-110035, as shown in red colour in site plan) to them.
Considering the circumstances of the case however
and for practical purposes - the fact that defendant no. 2 / wife
will require time to make alternate arrangements, the Court being
cognizant to protect the legitimate interests of defendant no. 2 as
well, the present order shall be taken to mean to come into effect
after a period of 20 days from today only.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
In view of the order having been passed as aforesaid,
order under O 15A CPC is deferred for the time being.
Put up for completion of pleadings / further
proceedings on 09.01.2026.
(Gaurav Sharma)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge
North West/Rohini Courts/Delhi
12.11.2025
pg. no. 5/5
-- 5 of 5 --