Summary
A tenant of a Greater Kailash residence under lease agreements of 2011 and 2013 paid no rent after July 2014. In the landlord's suit for possession and arrears he admitted the ownership, the leases and the rent, but pleaded that the landlord had agreed to sell him the property under three agreements to sell of 2017, the accrued rent to be adjusted against the price, and that his status had changed to purchaser; a suit for specific performance was pending. The trial court decreed possession on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and the Delhi High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court set the decree aside. The power under Order XII Rule 6 is discretionary and is to be exercised only on clear, categorical and unconditional admissions; where the defendant sets up a defence based on agreements to sell, its plausibility is a matter for trial, and on the ratio of S.M.
Issues
- Whether a decree for possession may be passed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the admitted landlord–tenant relationship when the tenant pleads that subsequent agreements to sell changed his status to purchaser and a specific performance suit is pending.
- What interim protection the landlord is entitled to when such a suit is remitted for trial.
Provisions considered
- Order XII Rules 1 to 6 (judgment on admissions), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Rule 6 uses 'may' and 'as it may think fit'; the power is discretionary, to be invoked only on specific, clear and categorical admissions of facts or documents, and not to deny a defendant's right to have a plausible defence tried. (¶¶ 15, 16, 18, 22)
- Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act, 1882The tenant invoked protection of possession under the agreements to sell; the landlord contended that no consideration had passed and the agreement itself recorded that no earnest money was paid. The Court recorded no finding, leaving the defence for trial. (¶¶ 14, 20, 21, 22)
- Section 58, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The landlord relied on Nagindas Ramdas for the proposition that admissions in pleadings stand on a higher footing and dispense with proof; the Court held that the admissions here were not clear and categorical in the face of the defence taken. (¶¶ 14, 21, 22)
Held
- Following S.M. Asif v. Virendar Kumar Bajaj, where the tenancy is admitted but the defendant pleads an agreement to sell and a specific performance suit is pending, the mere relationship of landlord and tenant is not an unequivocal admission; deciding whether the defence under the three agreements to sell is plausible requires evidence, so the decree under Order XII Rule 6 passed without dealing with the defence cannot stand. No finding was recorded on the tenancy or the defence. (¶¶ 18, 22)
- Since no rent has been paid since 07.07.2014 and the extended lease had raised the rent by about 30%, the trial court shall first determine the monthly rent applying that increase year to year and order payment of arrears and deposit of regular monthly rent, subject to the outcome of the suit and of the tenant's specific performance suit. (¶ 23)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Delhi High Court's judgment of 08.04.2021 in RFA No. 218/2021 and the trial court's decree of 01.12.2020 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC set aside and the suit remitted to the trial court for expeditious decision on evidence, after first ordering payment of arrears and monthly rent.