05 Jan 2121
Case : Rajan Bhandari & Anr v. Shriniwas Verma CM(M) No. 37/2020
Court : Delhi High Court
Bench : Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Decided on : 05 Jan 2121
Order XXII and Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Brief Facts and Procedural History
1. Respondent filed a Suit for Possession, Permanent Injunction and Damages against the Petitioners contending that respondent is the owner of built-up property in question.
2. Trial Court found that Petitioners were tenants in respect of the Suit Property and since there is a clear and unambiguous admission on the part of the Petitioners with respect to the relationship of tenant and landlord in the written statement. Thus a Decree of Possession under Order 12 Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of Suit Property was passed.
3. The petitioner approached the High Court against the decision of the Trial Court.
The Issue of the Case
Whether the Trial Court has rightfully passed the decree of possession?
The Observations of the Court
1. The High Court issued notice to the respondent to grant time to vacate the premises. Petitioners were directed to pay a sum of ₹15,000/- to the respondent.
2. Petitioners agreed to clear the entire arrears in four equal monthly instalments and continue to pay monthly use and occupation charges of ₹4,000/- per month regularly. On this assurance, the case was adjourned and the question with regard to grant of some reasonable time to vacate the premises was deferred.
3. The said order was not complied with by the petitioners.
4. Written Note of submissions filed by the petitioners has several averments completely unrelated to the case. It was admitted there is no lease deed executed between the parties thereby implying that there is no subsisting term of the tenancy and the petitioners are tenants on a month-to-month basis.
5. Respondent/landlord by way of the admissions of the petitioners established the ingredients required to be proved for securing an order of eviction in a suit for possession i.e. (a) Relationship of landlord and tenant; (b )The tenancy is not a protected tenancy; (c) No subsisting term of the tenancy.
6. As there is no lease deed, admittedly, executed between the parties, Petitioners were tenants from month to month. Though the receipt of termination notice was denied, it is settled law that even filing of a Suit for Possession amounts to termination of tenancy.
7. No ground has been raised by the petitioners either in the petition; during oral submissions or the written note to show that there is any infirmity in the view taken by the Trial Court in passing a Decree of Possession based on admissions.
The Decision Held by the Court
The High Court dismissed the petition and held that:
1. The decision of the Trial Court is upheld.
2. There is no merit in the petition.
3. As the petitioner substantially delayed the execution of the order of eviction, failed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court directing the petitioners to pay a sum of ₹ 15,000/- to the respondent and failed to honour the assurance given to clear the entire arrears in four equal monthly instalments and thereafter continue to pay user and occupation charges of ₹ 4,000 per month, costs quantified at ₹ 25,000/- is imposed on the petitioner.