Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, (‘CPC’) impugning the order dated 7-10-2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, East, Karkardooma Court, Delhi (‘Impugned Order’) whereby the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC (‘Application’) filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Trial Court. A Single Judge Bench of Tara Vitasta Ganju, J., opined that admissions could be inferred from vague and evasive denials or even from the facts and circumstances of a case. The Court noted that the respondent had admitted to being a tenant and being in occupation of the tenanted premises, however, he had denied the execution of the Lease Deed but admitted that the Second and Third Lease Deeds were executed between him and S.D Malik, mother of the Directors of the petitioner company.
The Court held that the Trial Court erred in not exercising jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC as the respondent’s admissions entitled the petitioner to possession without trial. The Court thus allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order.
Background
The petitioner, a private limited company was the owner of property (‘subject premises’), where the respondent was inducted as a tenant at a flat on second floor of the subject premises (‘tenanted premises’) by a lease deed dated 13-3-2019 from 20-2-2019 to 19-1-2020 (‘Lease Deed’), at a monthly rent of Rs 20,000. The petitioner claimed that the Lease Deed expired by efflux of time on 19-1-2020 and since the respondent failed to vacate the premises, a suit for ejectment, eviction, recovery of rent and arrears, and permanent injunction was filed.
The respondent filed a written statement and ubsequently, the petitioner filed an application submitting that ejectment should be granted based on the admissions made in the written statement and in an undertaking given by the respondent. However, the respondent contended that no such admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC were made and denied giving any undertaking. He further asserted the existence of two lease deeds dated 27-2-2019 from 19-1-2020 to 19-12-2020 (‘Second Lease Deed’) and another dated 9-7-2020 from 20-3-2020 to 20-2-2021 (‘Third Lease Deed’) executed between him and one S.D Malik, mother of the Directors of the petitioner company. The respondent contended that no jural relationship existed between him and the petitioner and thus, the application was not maintainable.
The Trial Court held that the respondent had consistently maintained his version of the defence and that no clear categorical specific admission was made, on which a judgment on admissions could be passed. It also held that as the respondent denied the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the relief sought could not be granted. Thus, the present petition was filed before the Court.
Case Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that for an application to be allowed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC for recovery of possession of a tenanted premise to succeed, the landlord must establish three parameters: (i) the relationship of landlord and tenant must be admitted, (ii) the tenancy must not be a protected tenancy under the Delhi Rent Control Act (with rent exceeding Rs 3,500), and (iii) the tenancy must have been terminated or expired by efflux of time with tenant failing to hand over possession.
The Court noted that the respondent had not denied being a tenant and admitted to having paid rent of 20,000 per month, and that no valid lease existed post June 2022. The respondent had also not denied that he was put into possession by S.D Malik and that he had paid rent to her or the caretaker of the property. Clearly, the respondent was paying rental also to a third party even though he admitted to S.D Malik as his landlord. Since, the respondent was inducted by S.D Malik and not the petitioner, there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant.
The Court further observed that it was no longer res integra that admissions could be inferred even from vague and evasive denials or even from the facts and circumstances of a case. The respondent had admitted to being a tenant and being in occupation of the tenanted premises, however, he denied the execution of the Lease Deed but admitted that the Second and Third Lease Deeds were executed between him and S.D Malik. A review of the Lease Deed which was executed between the respondent and the directors of the company showed that the Lease Deed had been executed for a period from 20-2-2019 to 19-1-2020. The Court thus stated that although the respondent denied executing the Undertaking in his statement made without an oath under Order X of the CPC, he admitted to being a tenant. The Court noted that the Trial Court by the Impugned Order held that the respondent had set up a plea which would require trial and had thus dismissed the application. The Court stated that the respondent’s defence was such that even if the matter went to trial, it would not change the outcome of the petition and the respondent did not deny being a tenant and did not even raise any issue that would require the matter to trial.
Further, the denial of the jural relationship by the respondent was basically a denial that the landlord was not the petitioner company but a director of the petitioner company. The Court opined that t was clear from the Company Master Data produced by the petitioner company that it was a closely held private limited company with its Directors being family members and even the Sale Deed reflected the ownership of the petitioner company. The Court stated that no doubt, the petitioner company was a separate legal entity, but a director/authorized signatories of this company included the name of the admitted landlord, S.D. Malik. The Court stated that the respondent’s contention that he was not aware of the relationship or that his landlord was S.D. Malik appeared to be without merit.
The Court thus observed that the dispute which was sought to be raised by the respondent between the parties with respect to existence of relationship of lessor and lessee between them was not a dispute which goes to the root of the matter or required evidence. The landlord was admittedly a company and one of its authorized signatory/Directors was S.D Malik who had been acknowledged as the landlord by the respondent. The Court further noted that the provisions of Section 115 CPC were clear and unequivocal that where there was an error which goes to the root of the jurisdiction, the revisionary jurisdiction could be exercised by this Court.
The Court stated that the only real dispute raised in the written statement by the respondent was that S.D. Malik prior to the commencement of the tenancy, had agreed to provide separate electricity meter, water motor and PNG meter and stated that she would take care of the building. However, when the respondent shifted into the building, maintenance work was still pending into the subject premises and the maintenance of water/sewage/PNG pipelines and repair of bathroom was yet to be completed. The Court noted that unless the respondents had raised an objection which goes to the root of the case, discretion ought to be exercised under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.
The Court noted that the respondent admitted to being a tenant and that the tenancy had expired by the efflux of time and that there was no renewal and even the rental was not disputed. No dispute between the petitioner company or its Directors, S.D. Malik had been shown either as to ownership of the suit property. Thus, the issues that had been set up in defence by the respondent were such that it would not be possible for him to succeed even if these were entertained, so far as it concerned the recovery of possession of the subject premises. The Court opined that no useful purpose would be served if the matter went to trial on the prayer for recovery of possession.
The Court thus observed that the Trial Court erred in not exercising jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, as the respondent’s admissions entitled the petitioner to possession without trial. The Court allowed the petition, set aside the Impugned Order and directed that the suit would continue only for arrears of rent and mesne profits.
[Indoj Consultant (P) Ltd. v. Govind Mishra, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5363, decided on 2-7-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Swaty Singh Malik, C.M Grover, Rohan Kumar, Deepti Verma, Kashish Dhawan and Payal Budhiraja, Advocates
For the Respondent: Parvinder Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Rishikant Singh along with Respondent in person