IN THE COURT OF [ENTITY], SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENTCOLLER, NORTH-WEST, ROHINI COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI. NEW CS. NO.1632/2018 Smt. [ENTITY] W/o. Sh. A.P. Garg R/o. C-5/91, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, Delhi-35. Presently residing at : C-8/254B, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, Delhi-35. Plaintiff Versus Sh. [ENTITY] S/o. Sh. Subhash Nanda R/o. C-5/91, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, Delhi-35. Defendant Date of Institution of the case : 29/10/2018 Date of decision : 05/02/2019 Decision : Suit Partly Decreed. JUDGMENT UNDER [SECTION] [ACT] 1. This is a suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent, user and occupation charges against defendant whose tenancy as per the plaintiff stands determined regarding the suit property i.e. Flat No-C-5/91, Ground Floor, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, Delhi-35 as shown in red in site plan filed alongwith the plaint. 2. In nutshell for the present purpose, it is stated in the plaint that defendant is a tenant in the suit property under the plaintiff. [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page 1 of 11 That the suit property was let out to defendant on rent @ Rs.12,000/- per month excluding water, electricity and other charges for 11 months from 05/03/2016 vide a written rent agreement dated 04/03/2016. Copy of the same is placed on record. That Despite demand, the defendant defaulted in paying rent and other charges as well as failed to vacate the suit premises despite repeated requests. As such, the plaintiff terminated tenancy of the defendant vide legal notice dated 24- 09-2018. The plaintiff demanded from defendant to vacate the suit premises but he failed to do the same. Therefore, plaintiff filed the present suit. 3. The defendant appeared on 28/11/2018 in person with counsel, pursuance to summons issued to him. But he has failed to file WS so far. But on 28/11/2018 itself, the defendant admitted that he entered into a rent agreement with plaintiff. That rate of rent is Rs.12,000/- per month. He further claimed that rent at such rate is paid upto November, 2018. He further sated that he is ready to vacate the suit premises, but need some time to find alternative accommodation. 4. But despite so, the defendant has failed to vacate the suit property so far. 5. In view of such admission by the defendant side, it is submitted by counsel for plaintiff that judgment under [SECTION] [ACT] be passed. Thereafter, arguments heard on [SECTION] [ACT] from both sides. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page 2 of 11 defendant in person, in detail and have carefully gone through the record. 7. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to [SECTION] of the [ACT] which provides as under :- "6. Judgment on admission. - (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 parties, make such order or given such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions. (2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under [SECTION] a decree shall be drawn up in accor- dance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced." (emphasis added) 8. In the judgment titled as "[PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: 2. " In fact, [SECTION], [ACT] is enacted for the purpose of and in order to expedite the trials if there is any admission on behalf of the defendants or an admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute; then, in such a case in order to expedite and dispose of the matter such admission can be acted upon. In the present case, looking at the terms of lease deed, there can be no two opinions that the tenancy was joint /composite and not individual one. Therefore, on these admitted [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page 3 of 11 facts the view taken by learned single Judge of the High Court appears to be justified. In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision of this Court in the case of [PRECEDENT]. Their Lordships have held as follows: 3. "In the Objects and Reasons set out while amending [SECTION], [ACT] 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 to 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." " (emphasis added) 9. Adverting to the facts of the present case, in view of previous order-sheet, it is clear that the defendant has admitted the landlord tenant relationship between plaintiff and himself. Further, he admitted that the rent @ Rs. 12,000/- per month was agreed between them. 10. At this stage it is very relevant to note, keep in mind and follow the directions and observations by three judges bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment of " [PRECEDENT]"[ decided on 21 March, 2012 in [CASE NUMBER], arising out of [CASE NUMBER]]: " 30. The appellant submitted that for more than two decades the appellant is without the possession of her own house despite the fact that she has valid title to the suit property. [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page 4 of 11 Truth as guiding star in judicial process . 31. In this unfortunate litigation, the Court's serious endeavour has to be to find out where in fact the truth lies. The truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial process. 32. Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The entire judicial system has been created only to discern and find out the real truth. Judges at all levels have to seriously engage themselves in the journey of discovering the truth. That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty. 33. Justice system will acquire credibility only when people will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth. 34. In [PRECEDENT], this Court observed that in such a situation a question that arises for consideration is whether the presiding officer of a Court should simply sit as a mere umpire at a contest between two parties and declare at the end of the combat who has won and who has lost or is there not any legal duty of his own, independent of the parties, to take an active role in the proceedings in finding the truth and administering justice? It is a well accepted and settled principle that a Court must discharge its statutory functions- whether discretionary or obligatory-according to law in dispensing justice because it is the duty of a Court not only to do justice but also to ensure that justice is being done. 68. In order to do justice, it is necessary to direct the parties to give all details of pleadings with particulars. Once the title is prima facie established, it is for the person who is resisting the title holder's claim to possession to plead with sufficient particularity on the basis of his claim to remain in possession and place before the Court all such documents as in the ordinary course of human affairs are expected to be there. Only if the pleadings are sufficient, would an issue be struck and the matter sent to trial, where the onus will be [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page 5 of 11 on him to prove the averred facts and documents. 69. The person averring a right to continue in possession shall, as far as possible, give a detailed particularized specific pleading along with documents to support his claim and details of subsequent conduct which establish his possession. 70. It would be imperative that one who claims possession must give all such details as enumerated hereunder. They are only illustrative and not exhaustive. (a) who is or are the owner or owners of the property; (b) title of the property; (c) who is in possession of the title documents (d) identity of the claimant or claimants to possession; (e) the date of entry into possession; (f) how he came into possession - whether he purchased the property or inherited or got the same in gift or by any other method; (g) in case he purchased the property, what is the consideration; if he has taken it on rent, how much is the rent, license fee or lease amount; (h) If taken on rent, license fee or lease - then insist on rent deed, license deed or lease deed; (i) who are the persons in possession/occupation or otherwise living with him, in what capacity; as family members, friends or servants etc.; (j) subsequent conduct, i.e., any event which might have extinguished his entitlement to possession or caused shift therein; and (k) basis of his claim that not to deliver possession but continue in possession. 71. Apart from these pleadings, the Court must insist on documentary proof in support of the pleadings. All those documents would be relevant which come into existence [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page 6 of 11 after the transfer of title or possession or the encumbrance as is claimed. While dealing with the civil suits, at the threshold, the Court must carefully and critically examine pleadings and documents. 72. The Court will examine the pleadings for specificity as also the supporting material for sufficiency and then pass appropriate orders. . .
76. In pleadings, whenever a person claims right to continue in possession of another property, it becomes necessary for him to plead with specificity about who was the owner, on what date did he enter into possession, in what capacity and in what manner did he conduct his relationship with the owner over the years till the date of suit. He must also give details on what basis he is claiming a right to continue in possession. Until the pleadings raise a sufficient case, they will not constitute sufficient claim of defence "
(emphasis added)
11. Thus, until the pleadings raise a sufficient case, they will not constitute sufficient claim of defence. Furthermore, it may be repeated that it is held in the judgment of "[ENTITY])" that admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute. And in the facts and circumstances of present case, there is clear cut admissions, as also appears during course of arguments, regarding landlord tenant relationship and rate of rent @ Rs.12,000/- per month. Thus, in order to expedite and dispose of the matter such admission can be acted upon.
12. At this stage it would also be fruitful to refer to Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in "[PRECEDENT]. [113 (2004) DLT 788, 2004 (77) DRJ 82]:
" 5.A bare perusal of [SECTION], re-produced above makes it clear that the emphasis is on admission of relevant facts. If the relevant facts have been admitted, the mere fact that the defendants have tried to put their own interpretation to those facts with a view to defeat the claim of the plaintiff would not be a sufficient ground to decline relief under [SECTION], [ACT]. Reference in this connection may be made to some decisions of this Court. In the case of [PRECEDENT], it was found on facts that the premises were let out to the defendant, although agreement was ostensibly described as an agreement of collaboration. The defendant admitted the collaboration agreement but contended that the agreement had been extended for indefinite period and therefore plaintiff were not entitled for possession so long as nursing home is being run in the premises. Proper issues had been framed in the case and thereafter the petitioner filed an application under [SECTION], [ACT]. The application was allowed by this Court being of the view that relevant facts have been admitted. It was held that basically it was an agreement of tenancy which stands duly terminated by service of the notice. In another case reported in [PRECEDENT], the facts were that the, plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the property bearing No. H-72, Connaught Circus. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were tenants of the said property, part of the said property had been sub-let to defendant No. 4. Tenancy was created by a registered lease deed for a fixed term and the lease expired by efflux of time. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had sub-let the premises to defendant No. 4 on monthly rent @ Rs. 24701 /-. The tenancy was terminated by notice dated 11.7.97. In the written statement, defendants took the stand that agreed rent between them and the plaintiff was only Rs. 1400/- per month which is below Rs. 3500/-, therefore, the suit is barred under [SECTION] of Act. ownership of the plaintiff was also denied. Even service of notice under [SECTION], [ACT] was denied. After completion of pleadings, plaintiff filed an application under [SECTION], [ACT] which was opposed on the similar grounds. The Court observed that the sale deed executed by previous owners has been acted upon in other proceedings, therefore, passing of decree under [SECTION], [ACT] need not be deferred only for formal proof of sale deed. On the point of termination of tenancy it was held that the lease has expired as it was a fixed term tenancy created by a registered deed. Besides, notice under [SECTION], [ACT] was duly served. Postal receipt have been placed on record. The plea regarding rent being less than Rs. 3500/- was negated on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], wherein it was held that since the tenant himself had sub-let a part of demised premises @ Rs. 24701/- per month the case is not covered under the provisions of [ACT]. [ENTITY], J. repelled the contention of the defendant that the decree under [SECTION], [ACT] should not be passed as the resolution authorising plaintiff's attorney to institute the suit and the notice under [SECTION] of the [ACT] has to be formally proved. It was observed that once the relevant facts are admitted, there is no need to defer passing of decree under [SECTION], [ACT] if on proper interpretation of relevant documents the petitioner is entitled to the decree. "
(emphasis added)
13. Thus, in any case if the relevant facts have been admitted, the mere fact that the defendant has tried to put their own interpretation to those facts with a view to defeat the claim of the plaintiff would not be a sufficient ground to decline relief under [SECTION], [ACT].
14. Further, as far as rate of rent is concerned, on the basis of pleadings and admission of defendant it is @ Rs.12,000/= per month. Consequently, it is held that as such suit premises in question does not fall within the ambit of [ACT].
15. Further, there is no dispute regarding the identity and description of suit premises in question.
16. Further the defendant did not deny that, he has not received the legal notice in question.
17. But in any case, it is held that in fact the plaint itself can be treated as notice to quit and filing of a suit to recover possession amounts to termination of tenancy. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment titled as [PRECEDENT] is relied in this regard.
18. Thus, the tenancy of the defendant, therefore, stood terminated at any rate on expiry of a period of 15 days after service of summons in the present suit. The result is that in any case as on the date, the tenancy of the defendant stood terminated.
19. On termination of tenancy the status of the defendant in the suit premises has been reduced to that of an unauthorized occupant/ trespasser. The result is that the defendant is liable to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is thus entitled to decree of ejectment in terms of [SECTION] [ACT]. Reference may also be made to the judgments titled as [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]. As such the present suit deserves to be partly decreed. Accordingly, the plea under [SECTION] [ACT] is allowed.
RELIEF:
20. A decree of possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, thereby directing the defendant to hand over the vacant physical peaceful possession of the suit premises i.e. Flat No-C-5/91, Ground Floor, Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram, Delhi-35 as shown in red in site plan filed which is now Ex. P-1.
21. The suit is partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against all the defendants in these terms under [SECTION] [ACT]. Costs shall be determined at the time of final disposal of the entire suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in the open Court [ENTITY] Digitally signed by [ENTITY] on 5th February, 2019 [ENTITY] (This order contains 11 pages) KASHYAP Date: 2019.02.05 17:08:43 +0530 ([ENTITY])
Senior Civil Judge-Cum- Rent Controller:
North-West: Rohini: Delhi