$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA6712014 Decided on 19th December, 2014 SHIKHAR JAIN Through: versus ..... Appellant Mr. Saurabh, Adv. SUNIL KUMAR JAIN & ANR Through: None. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK A.K.PATHAK, J.(ORAL) 1. The appellant is husband of respondent No.2. Appellant had taken the suit property i.e., property bearing No.8555, 1st Floor, Katra Dhunimal, Ganesh Das Building, Bhargarh, Roshan Ara Road, Delhi -110007 from the respondent no.1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/- per month, vide Rent Agreement dated 10.05.2011. Thereafter, appellant occupied the tenanted premises along with his wife, that is, respondent no.2. Respondent no.1 filed a suit for possession, recovery of mesne profits and arrears of rent against the appellant and respondent no.2 alleging therein that appellant was irregular in making payment of rent. Ultimately, he stopped paying rent from the month of February, 2012 onwards. Appellant and respondent no.2 did not vacate the suit property even after expiry of tenancy period on 09.04.2012. In terms of the Rent Agreement, appellant was liable to pay Rs. 1,000/- per day after 09.04.2012. Since premises was not vacated despite termination of tenancy vide Legal Notice dated 02.05.2012 served on the appellant through registered AD and speed post, hence, the suit.
2. In the written statement appellant did not deny the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and respondent no.1. Rate of rent was also not disputed. However, appellant denied that he defaulted in making payment of rent. He alleged that respondent no.2 had instituted a complaint under Protection of Woman From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi wherein on 2.3.2012, he was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent no.2 subject to the condition of removal of articles from the tenanted premises after breaking open the lock in the presence of the Investigating Officer on 03.03.2012. On 03.03.2012 he removed all his goods and belongings from the suit premises and handed over possession to respondent no.1. Appellant alleged that he had paid rent till March, 2012. Accordingly, appellant was not liable to pay the rent after 03.03.2012. Respondent no.2 and her family members illegally occupied the tenanted premises. Thus, appellant was not liable to pay monthly rent after 03.03.2012. Appellant alleged that he sent a Legal Notice dated 30.05.2012 to respondent no.1 intimating this fact.
3. A perusal of order dated 15.01.2014 shows that respondent no.2 had made a statement on that date that she would hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to appellant on or before 28.02.2014. Appellant‟s counsel made a statement that appellant had already vacated the suit premises on 05.03.2012. However, fact remains that possession was handed over by the respondent no.2 to respondent no.1 only on 28.02.2014, pursuant to the said order. Respondent no.2, that is, wife of appellant continued to occupy the suit property upto 28th February, 2014. As regards mesne profits, issues were framed on 15.01.2014 and the matter was set for trial.
4. During the trial, trial court vide decree dated 22.09.2014 under Order 12 Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 („the Code‟, for short) has ordered for payment of admitted rent of Rs.6,000/- from 01.02.2012 to 28.02.2014. Aggrieved by the decree, appellant has preferred this appeal.
5. Trial Court has held that Landlord –Tenant relationship was not in dispute; appellant had admitted that rent was not paid by him from the month of March, 2012. There was a marital discord between the appellant and respondent no.2, on account of which appellant had left the house. However respondent no.2 continued to retain possession of the suit premises and possession was handed over ultimately on 28.02.2014 by the respondent no.2. The marriage of appellant and respondent no.2 was still subsisting as no decree of divorce had been passed. A clear cut admission on these facts can be inferred from the pleadings and other material on record. Thus, appellant was liable to pay rent till the possession of the suit premises was handed over by the wife of appellant to respondent no.1 on 28.02.2014. Accordingly, decree has been passed for payment of arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.2.2012 till the date of the possession to respondent no.1,that is on 28.02.2014, on the admitted rent.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that no decree on admission could have been passed by the trial court under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code, without rendering findings on the issues framed and that too only after affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Matter was set for trial and evidence of the respondent no.1 was in progress, thus, no decree under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code was permissible under law. I do not find any force in this contention of learned counsel. Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code reads as under:6.Judgment 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 an party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such Order or give such judgment as It may think fit, having regard to such admissions. (2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.
7. A perusal of the quoted provision makes it clear that object of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment on admission, at least to the extent of relief in respect whereof admission of the fact has been made by the opposite party. Meaning thereby if a fact alleged by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant in the pleadings or otherwise the judgment on such admission can be passed by the court so as to ensure the compliance of whole objective of incorporating the procedure as enshrined under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code. The procedure of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code is to grant a quick relief to commercial litigants, whenever court finds any legal admission of facts made in pleadings or otherwise, either orally or in writing, the court will help the litigant to get quick relief. Merely because issues have been framed in the case is no ground to reject an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code, for passing judgment on such admissions. In Parivar Seva Sansthan Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Veena Kalra and Ors. AIR2000Delhi 349, a Division Bench of this Court has held that use of the expression "any stage" in the said rule itself shows that the legislature's intent is to give it widest possible meaning. Thus merely because issues are framed cannot, by itself, deter the court to pass the judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6.
8. In Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. vs. United Bank of India and Ors 2000 (7) SCC120 the Supreme Court held that “the object of the rule is to enable 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. We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed.”
In Charanjit Lal Mehra and Ors. vs. Smt. Kamal Saroj Mahajan and Anr. AIR2005SC2765 Supreme Court held that Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code is enacted for the purpose to expedite the trials and 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.
9. Now coming back to the facts and circumstances of the present case, appellant has admitted that he had taken the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 6000/- from the respondent no.1 vide rent agreement dated 10.05.2011. It was also admitted that after taking the premises on rent, he was living in the tenanted premises along with his wife i.e. respondent no.2. The statement dated 15.01.2014 of respondent no.2, recorded by the court on oath, clearly shows that possession of the suit property was handed over by the respondent no.2 to respondent no.1 only on 28.02.2014. A clear admission of fact can be culled out from the above fact is that physical possession of the suit premises was not handed over to the respondent no.1 in the month of March 2012, as the same continued to remain with respondent no.2. Merely because appellant allegedly had left the house on 03.03.2012, on account of marital discord with respondent no.2, will not make any difference and will not affect the rights of respondent no.1 to recover the rent from the tenant, that is, appellant. The suit premises was not let out to respondent no.2. It was let out to appellant. Respondent no.2 was living with the appellant as his family member. There was no privity of contract between the respondent no.2 and respondent no.1 since suit property was let out to appellant by the respondent no.1 and not to respondent no.2. It was for the appellant to deliver physical possession of the suit property to respondent no.1 after vacating the same. Since appellant‟s wife continued to occupy the same, it continued to remain in the tenancy of appellant till his wife handed over the possession. Till 28.02.2014, appellant being tenant, is liable to pay the rent as the possession of the suit property was handed over to respondent no.1 on that day. Respondent no.1 being landlord and owner of the suit property cannot be made to suffer on account of inter se disputes between the husband and wife. Appellant had taken the premises on rent and it was his responsibility to pay the rent till possession of the tenanted premises is surrendered by him or his family members to respondent no.1.
10. In the written statement appellant has stated that he had paid the rent till March, 2012. He has not stated in the written statement that rent was paid by him even thereafter; meaning thereby an admission can be inferred that rent remained unpaid during the period appellant‟s wife (respondent no.2) continued to occupy the suit property. It is not the case that respondent no.2 had paid the rent to respondent no.1 for and on behalf of appellant. As regards month of March, 2012 is concerned, appellant did not place any rent receipt on record. Accordingly, trial court has rightly passed a decree of arrears of rent on the admitted rent of Rs.6,000/- per month with effect from 01.02.2012 till 28.02.2014, when the possession of suit property was handed over to respondent no.1.
11. For the aforesaid reasons appeal is dismissed. A.K. PATHAK, J.
DECEMBER19 2014 gb