Page1of15

INTHECOURTOFMs.SUNENASHARMA
Addl.DisttJudge03(SE)
SAKETCOURTSCOMPLEX:NEWDELHI

CSNo.373/2015
UniqueCaseIDNo.02406C0348462015

DateofInstitution:13.12.2014
Dateofdecision:04.05.2016

AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrversusAshokBiswal

ORDER

1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application moved by

plaintiffsunderOrder12Rule6CPC,whereinplaintiffsareseekingdecree
of possession against defendant on the basis of admissions made in the
writtenstatement.

2. Brieflystatedtheplaintiffscaseasnarratedintheplaintisthat
plaintiffsarethecoownerofthepremisesno.97,SouthParkApartment,B
BlockDDAFlats,Kalkaji,NewDelhi110019,(hereinafterreferredas'suit
property')whichwasletouttodefendantvideleasedeeddated02.06.2014
fortheperiodof11monthsatmonthlyrentofRs.42,000/whichwas
payableinadvancebychequeorcashonorbefore7thdayofeachEnglish
calendermonth.Asperthetermsofleasedeed,ineventofdefaultofrent
fortwoconsecutivemonthstheleasedeedshallcometoanendandshall
bedeemedterminatedwithoutnoticefromeitherside.Thereleventclause

CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
 Page2of15

oftheleasedeedreadsasunder:
Clause II (a) That the lessee shall pay the monthly rent of Rs.
42,000/(RupeesFortyTwoThousandOnly)permonth,inadvance
bycheque/cashonorbefore7thdayofeachEnglishCalendermonth.
ClauseIII(a).....Itisagreedandunderstoodthatintheeventof
defaultofpaymentofrentonthepartoftheLesseefortwomonths
consecutively this Lease Agreement shall forthwith automatically
cometoanendanddeemedterminatedwithoutnoticefromeither
side.

3. It is further the case of plaintiff that defendant defaultedin

payingtherentforfourconsecutivemonthsi.e.fromAugusttoNovember,
2014.Afterseveralcallsandremindersoftheplaintiff,thedefendantfinally
gavethreepostdatedchequesof25.08.2014,07.09.2014and07.10.2014
on21.08.2014.Thedefendantrequestedtheplaintifftodepositthecheque
dated25.08.2014towardspaymentofrentforthemonthofAugust(which
became due on 07.08.2014) on 27.08.2014 but the said cheque got
dishonoredonitspresentationon27.08.2014onaccountof'insufficiencyof
funds'.However,laterontherentofAugustwaspaidon03.09.2014butthe
rentofremainingmonthsremainedunpaidtillthefilingofpresentsuit.Itis
furtheraverredthatsincethedefendantbreachedthetermsofleasedeed
bymakingthreeconsecutivedefaults,theleaseintermsofClauseIII(a)is
deemedtobeterminatedandaccordingly,plaintiffrequesteddefendantto
vacatethesuitpremisesinitiallybyoralrequestandlateronbysendinga
legalnoticedated01.10.2014.ThesaidnoticesentthroughSpeedPostand
courier was received back unserved with an endorsement that no such
personwasfoundavailableatthegivenaddress.Therefore,plaintiffmade

CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
 Page3of15

anattempttodeliverthenoticetothedefendantbyhandbutdefendant's
wiferefusedtoacceptthesameandinsteaddefendantsent lettersdated
06.10.2014, 15.10.2014 & 30.10.2014 to plaintiff wherein he admitted
defaultonhispartforpaymentofrentforthemonthofSeptemberand
Octoberbuthetriedtofalselyportraythathewastryingtoreachoutto
plaintiffstomakeaforementionedpayments.

4. Itisfurtheraverredthatsincethedefendantfailedtovacate
the premises even after termination of lease agreement therefore, he is
liabletopaydamagesforunauthorizeduseandoccupationofsuitpremises
w.e.f 01.09.2014 till handing over of possession at the rate of agreed
monthlyrentoratsuchratewhichtheCourtdeemsfit.

5. Defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement

wherein he took the preliminary objection regarding improper valuation
andlackofpecuniaryjurisdictionbystatingthatsuitpropertyisworthmore
thanRs.2croresandvaluationofthesuitandpaymentofcourtfeesshould
havebeenadvaloremi.e.asperthemarketvalueoftheproperty.

6. In reply on merits, defendant though has not denied the

executionofleasedeedbuthastakenthepleathatplaintiffhadalsoagreed
toprovidethegaragealongwiththesuitpropertytothedefendantwithin
onemonthofenteringoftheleaseagreementbuttheyfailedtohandover
thepossessionofthegaragetilldate.Itisfurtherstatedthatatthetimeof

CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
 Page4of15

entering into lease deed defendant had paid Rs. 1,26,000/ which is
inclusiveofsecuritydepositequivalenttotwomonthsrentandadvancerent
ofonemonth.Defendantdeniedthathecommittedanydefaultinpayment
ofrentandsubmittedthatthechequepaidtowardsadvancepaymentof
rentforthemonthofAugustgotdelayedanddishonoredonaccountof
someconfusionbutasandwhendefendantcametoknowaboutsaidfact
hemadethepaymenton03.09.2014andtherefore,therewasnodefault
perse.Itisfurtherstatedthatplaintiffsfailedtogetthegaragevacatedand
to hand over its possession to the defendant despite defendant's having
approachedthemseveraltimesandinsteadwiththeirmalafideintentionto
getthepremisesvacatedfromthedefendant,plaintiffsstoppedaccepting
therentfromthedefendantsoastomakeagroundforseekingvacation
underClauseIII(a)ofleasedeed.Defendantscategoricallydeniedtohave
receivedanylegalnoticefromtheplaintiffasallegedintheplaintandalso
deniedtheirliabilitytopayanydamages.

7. In the instant application, it is stated that defendant in his

writtenstatementhasclearlyadmittedtheexistenceofleasedeedwhich
hasexpiredinMay,2015byeffluxoftimeandinviewthereof,defendant
hasnorighttostayinthesuitproperty.Itisfurtherstatedthatthereisclear
unambiguous admission by defendant regarding existence of lessor and
lesseerelationship,regardinghisinductioninthesuitpropertyastenant
andfurtherregardingtheterminationofsuchrelationontheleasecoming
to an end by efflux of time. On the basis of aforementioned alleged

CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
 Page5of15

admissions in the written statement, plaintiffs has prayed for decree of

possessioninrespectofsuitpropertyunderOrder12Rule6CPC.

8. Inreplytotheapplication,defendantacceptedhisadmission
regardingtheexecutionofleasedeeddated02.06.2014betweenhimand
the plaintiff but he took the plea lease as per the terms of lease deed
expired on May, 2015 when present lis was already pending before the
Court and during the pendency of suit plaintiff accepted a sum of Rs.
1,26,000/towardspaymentof rentfromdefendanton22.050.2015i.e.
afterexpiryofleaseperiodandacceptanceofsaidpaymentbytheplaintiff
tentamountstowaiveroftheirobjection.Itisfurthersubmittedthatthe
pleaofterminationofleasetakenbytheplaintiffisfraudulentandisnot
sustainableintheeyesoflaw.Itisfurthersubmittedthatthoughthelease
expiredduetoeffluxoftimeduringpendencyofpresentcasebuttheright
ofthedefendanttoremaininpossessionissubsistingandinabsenceofany
freshleasedeedthetenancyhasbecomemonthtomonthtenancywhich
hasneverbeendeterminedaspertheprovisionsofTransferofPropertyAct.
Itisfurtherstatedplaintiff'splearegardingdefaultinpaymentofrentand
deemedterminationofleasedeedonthatcountisatriableissueasthe
samerequiresdetailedevidenceandhence,thecircumstancesofthecasedo
notcallforinvocationofOrder12Rule6CPC.Itisfurtheraverredthat
writtenstatementhastobereadintotalityandnoconclusioncanbedrawn
byreadingtheavermentsinpeacemeal.Itisfurtherstatedthatpresentsuit
for possession in itself is a premature suit therefore, no averment or

CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
 Page6of15

admissionsaregoodenoughtopassadecreeunderOrder12Rule6CPC.It
isfurtherstatedthatsincenoticeofterminationwasneverserveduponthe
defendant,therefore,theleaseisstillsubsistingandnodecreeofpossession
underOrder12Rule6CPCcanbepassed.

9. I have considered the submissions made by the respective

counsels of the parties and also gone through the entire record. Before
advertingtothefactsofthepresentcaseitisnecessarytogothoughthe
relevantprovisionoflaw.Order12Rule6CPCreadsasunder:
Judgmentonadmissions.(1)Whereadmissionsoffacthavebeen
madeeitherinthepleadingsorotherwise,whetherorallyorinwriting
thecourtmayatanystageofthesuit,eitherontheapplicationofany
party or of its own motion and without waiting for the for the
determination of any other question between the parties, make such
orderorgivesuchjudgmentasitmaythinkfit,havingregardtosuch
admissions.
(2) Wheneverajudgment is pronounced under subrule (1) adecree
shallbedrawnupinaccordancewiththejudgmentandthedecreeshall
bearthedateonwhichthejudgmentispronounced.

10. It is a trite law that prerequisites for passing a decree on

admission is existence of certain unambiquous and clear admissions.
Pleadingsoradocumenthastobeconstruedorreadasawholetoseeits
effect.Oneortwolinescannotbepermittedtobetakenoutofcontextand
usedasanadmissionofapartyentitlingtheotherforpassingofajudgment
uponadmission.

11. In the instant application, plaintiff has prayed for decree of

CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
 Page7of15

possessiononthegroundthatinviewofclearandunequivocaladmissions
of defendant in the written statement regarding execution of the lease
agreement and thereby existence of relationship of tenant and landlord
betweendefendantandplaintiff,regardingtermoftenancyandrateofrent;
theplaintiffisentitledfordecreeofpossessionunderOrder12Rule6CPC.

12. Itisarguedonbehalfofdefendantthattheplaintiffshavefiled
presentsuitforseekingpossessiononthegroundofforfeitureunderSection
111(g)TPAct bytakingthepleaofconsecutivedefaultsinpaymentof
rentbutthesamehasbeencategoricallydeniedbythedefendantinhis
written statement wherein he has specifically averred that it was the
plaintiff who deliberately refused to take rent from the defendant and
hence,thequestionofconsecutivedefaultsinpaymentofrentisatriable
issue,thus,thisisnotafitcaseforpassingjudgmentunderOrder12Rule
6 CPC. It is further urged that the second plea taken by the plaintiff
regardingexpiryofleasebyeffluxoftimeisalsonottenableasevenafter
expiryofleaseperiodplaintiffskeptacceptingtherentfromthedefendant
and hence, the tenancy became month to month tenancy which is
determinablebywayofnoticeofterminationasperSection106ofTransfer
ofPropertyAct,1882.

13. Percontra,thecounselforplaintiffarguedthatpaymentofRs.
1,26,000/ through demand draft from defendant was accepted only
towardsarrearsandnottowardsfuturerentpayableafterinstitutionofsuit

CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
 Page8of15

or expiry of lease deed and that too was accepted during pendency of
presentsuit,therefore,samecannotbetreatedaswaiveroftermination.He
furtherarguedthatsaidpaymentwasacceptedonlyunderprotestwhichis
alsoevidentfromthefactthattheplaintiffscontinuedwiththeirinstantsuit
forseekingpossessionevenafteracceptanceofsaidpayment.Hefurther
submittedthatinviewofthelawlaiddownbytheHon'bleDelhiHighCourt
inthematterof M/sJeevanDieselandElectricalsVs.M/sJasbirSingh
Chadha (HUF) & Ors. : RFA No. 179/2011 decided on 25.03.2011,in
suitsforpossessionbyalandlord,technicaldefenceswithrespecttonotices
should not be permitted. He further argued that even in said case the
tenancywascreatedonlyfor11monthsanditwasheldbytheHon'bleHigh
CourtthatnonoticeunderSection106,TPActwasrequiredinviewofthe
factthattenancywascreatedforfixedperiodof11monthsandsamestood
expiredbyeffluxoftimeaswell.

14. AsperSection111ofTPAct,tenancycomestoanendinevent
ofvariouscontingenciesenumeratedtherein.Oneofthemisbyeffluxof
time as mentioned in Clause (a) where tenancywas created for a fixed
periodandsecondly,bywayof forfeitureas is mentionedinClause(g)
thereof.Incaseofforfeiturewhichmayhappenincasethelesseebreaks
anycondition whichprovides that onbreach thereof,the lessormayre
enter,thelessorhastogiveanoticeinwritingtothelesseeofhisintention
todeterminethelease.Hence,u/sec111(g),thelessorhastherightto
determinealeaseforbreachofcovenantbutthatdoesnotipsofactoputan

CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
 Page9of15

endtothelease;itonlyexposesthetenanttosuchariskandgivesaright
tothelessortodeterminetheleaseifhesoelects.Asper2ndprovisoofSec.
112ofTPAct,acceptanceofrentbylessorafterinstitutionofsuittoeject
the lessee on the ground of forfeiture does not amount to a waiver of
forfeiture.

15. It is worthwhile to mention that in the instant application,

decreeofpossessionhasbeensoughtonaccountoftheleasehavingcome
to an end by efflux of time and not on the ground of forfeiture u/Sec.
111(g) TP Act. As per the applicant/plaintiffs, defendant in his written
statement has admitted the lease deed dated 02.06.2014 and in view
thereof,hehasadmittedtherelationshipoflandlordandtenantbetween
plaintiffanddefendant,therateofrentbeingRs.42,000/permonthas
wellas11monthstermoftheleasedeedhavingcometoanendinMay,
2015.Itisarguedthatinviewofaforementionedadmissionsonthepartof
defendant nothing survives for trial for grant of relief of possession in
favouroftheplaintiff.

16. Thecontentionraisedbydefendant'scounseltoopposeinstant
applicationistwofold.Firstly,thatatthetimeofinstitutionofpresentsuit
therewasnocauseofactioninfavouroftheplaintifftoseekejectmenton
the ground of determination of lease by efflux of time as the lease has
expired only on 03.05.2015 and hence, no decree for possession under
Order 12 Rule 6 CPC can be passed in the instant suit. The second

CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
 Page10of15

contentionraisedbydefendant'scounselisthatplaintiffbyacceptingthe
demanddraftdated22.05.2015forthesumofRs.1,26,000/towardsrent
from the defendant has waived off determination of lease and status of
defendanthasbecomethatofatenantbyholdingoverunderSection116
TP Act and such tenancy can be determined only by issuing notice of
determinationinaccordancewithSection106TPAct.

17. However,Idonotfindmeritsinanyoftheabovecontentions.
Asregardthefirstcontention,Iamoftheviewthatthoughasageneralrule
plaintiffshallnotbeallowedtotakeadvantageofthecauseofactionarising
subsequently,butsaidgeneralruleisalwayssubjecttoexceptionsandcan
be deviated from, if the court find it necessary to do so to promote
substantialjusticeandprovidedtherulesoffairplayarenotviolated.My
viewgetsfortifiedfromthejudgmentofHon'bleApexCourtinPashupati
Venkateshwarlu Vs. Motor & General Traders, 1975 (1) SCC, 770
whereinitisobservedthat:
We feel the submissions devoid of substance. First about the
jurisdiction and propriety vis-a-vis circumstances which come into
being subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings. It is
basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be
judged to exist as on the date a suit or institutes the legal
proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that procedure is the
handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process. If a fact,
arising after the lis has come to court and has a fundamental impact
on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it, is brought
diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind
to events which stultify or render inept the decretal remedy. Equity
justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision
or fairplay is not violated, with a view to promote substantial justice
subject, of course, to the absence of other disentitling factors or just
circumstances. Nor can we contemplate any limitation on this power

CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
 Page11of15

to take note of updated facts to confine it to the trial court. If the

litigation pends, the power exits, absent other special circumstances
repelling resort to that course in law or justice. Rulings on this point
are legion, even as situations for applications of this equitable rule
are myriad. We affirm the proposition that for making the right or
remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and
factually in accord with the current realities, the court can, and in
many cases must, take cautious cognizance of events and
developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding
provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed.

18. Oncetherelationshipofalandlordandtenantisadmittedby
thedefendantandtheleaseisgovernedbyTPActonaccountofrental
beingmorethan 3500/,the onlyquestionlefttobedeterminedbythe
Courtbeforeawardingadecreeofejectmentinfavourofthelandlordisto
see whether the lease has been determined in accordance with the
provisionsofSection111TPAct.Here,admittedly,theleasewascreated
forthelimitedperiodof11monthswhichcametoanendon03.05.2015.
In view of said admitted position on record, nothing survives for the
defendanttocontesttheplaintiff'sclaimtoseekhisejectmentandinsaid
circumstances,relegatingthepartiestoanewroundoflitigationwillnot
serve any purpose. Time and again it has been held in plethora of
judgmentsbytheHon'bleApexCourtthatapragmaticapproachshouldbe
adoptedbytheCourtsinordertodiscouragethefalseclaimsanddefences
raisedbyunscrupuloustenantswhoconsideritinherentrightnottovacate
thepremisesevenafterterminationoftheirtenancyastheyfeelthatthey
oughttovacatethetenantedpremisesonlywhentheCourtspassadecree
forpossessionagainstthem.Suchpracticeneedtobediscouragedasthe

CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
 Page12of15

same has become a serious problem for already overburdened judicial

systemofourcountry.

19. In Anil Suri Vs. Vikram Khanna & Ors. CM (M) No.
1341/2008 decided on 16.09.2009, the similar question had come up
beforetheHon'bleHighCourtwhereinthesuitforejectmentwasfiledon
thegroundofforfeiturebutduringthependencyofthesuittheleasealso
expiredbyeffluxoftimeanditwasheldbytheHon'bleHighCourtthat
assumingthattheleasewasnotvalidlyterminatedvidelegalnoticedated
10.01.2008butinanyeventlessorbecameentitledtorecoverpossessionof
thesuitpropertyastheinitialleasecametoanendbyeffluxoftimeon
14.07.2008.Itwasfurtherheldthatsincethepetitionersthereinhavefiled
thesuitforejectmentofthetenant,itisevidentthattherecannotbeany
possibilityofanymutualitybetweenthemwithregardtorenewaloflease.

20. Evenintheinstantcase,asperthetermsofleaseagreement
theleasewasextendablebymutualconsentofpartiessubjecttoincreaseof
rent by 10% but, in case of extention of lease a fresh agreement was
requiredtobemadeandsignedbythelessorandthelessee.Considering
thefactthatevenafterleasehavingcometoanendbyeffluxoftime,the
plaintiff continued with the present suit for ejectment itself makes it
abundantly clear that there was no intention on the part of plaintiff to
extendthelease.

CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
 Page13of15

21. Thesecondcontentionthatacceptanceofarrearsofrentbythe
plaintiff amounts to waiver is also bereft of merits as the draft of Rs.
1,26,000/wasacceptedbyplaintiff'scounselduringthependencyofthe
presentproceedingsandsamewasacceptedtowardsarrearsofrentforthe
month of September, October and November, 2014. Acceptance of said
arrears nowhere shows the intention of plaintiffs to treat the lease as
continuingandthesameisalsoevidentfromthefactthatdespiteaccepting
said payment from defendant; the plaintiff continued with the present
litigation.EvenapplyingtheanalogyofSection112TPAct,theacceptance
ofrentafterinstitutionofasuitforejectmentcannotbetreatedaswaiver
andhence,theargumentthatafteracceptanceofsaidpayment,defendant
becamethetenantbyholdingoveristotallyfallacious.

22. In view of above, both the contentions are discarded as

frivolousandmeritless.Letmenowtakeupthepreliminaryobjectiontaken
bythedefendantregardingimpropervaluationandpaymentofdeficient
court fees. As per Section 7 (xi) court fees Act, in a suit for seeking
possessionfromatenant,suitisrequiredtobevaluedaspertheannual
rentalonwhichadvalorumcourtfeesisrequiredtobepaid.Intheinstant
case,admittedlytherateoflastpaidrentisRs.42,000/permonthand
accordingly,thesuitforthereliefofpossessionwasrequiredtobevaluedat
Rs.5,04,000/uponwhichcourtfeesofRs.4,400/ispayable.Inpara22
(a) of the plaint, plaintiff has valued the suit in accordance with said
provision and has also paid appropriate court fees and hence, the

CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
 Page14of15

preliminaryobjectiontakenbythedefendantregardinglackofpecuniary
jurisdiction, improper valuation and deficiency in court fees are wholly
misconceivedandmeritless.

23. Inviewoftheaforementioneddiscussion,Iamoftheviewthat
suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed not only for the relief of
possessionbutalsoforthereliefofarrearsofrentaswellasdamagesonthe
basisofadmissions.Afterexpiryofleaseperiod,tenancycametoanend
w.e.f.03.05.2015andinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofSection108(m)
TPAct,thelesseewasboundtohandoverthevacantphysicalpossessionof
thesuitpropertyafterdeterminationofleaseandsincethedefendantfailed
tohandoverthepossessionofthesuitpremisesevenafter03.05.2015,his
possessioninthesuitpropertybecameunauthorizedandillegalforwhich
heisliabletopaymesneprofits/damagestotheplaintiff.Inthepresent
suit,plaintiffhasclaimeddamages@monthlyrentwhichisadmittedlyRs.
42,000/permonth.Accordingly,defendantisliabletopaydamagestothe
plaintiff @ Rs. 42,000/ per month w.e.f. 04.05.2015 till the date of
handing over of possession. As regard the arrears of rent, admittedly,
plaintiffhasreceivedthesumofRs.1,26,000/towardsthepaymentofrent
for3monthsandinviewthereof,thesaidreliefforarrearsofrentforsaid
periodhasbecomeinfructuous.Plaintiffishowever,entitledforrecoveryof
arrearsofrentw.e.f.December,2014tilltheexpiryofleaseperiod.From
saidduesoffivemonths,plaintiffshallbeentitledtorecoverduesoftwo
monthrentafteradjustingrefundablesecurityofRs.1,26,000/whichis

CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal
 Page15of15

equivalent to three month rental. Application stands allowed in

aforementionedterms.

24. Accordingly, defendant is directed to hand over the vacant

physicalpossessionofthesuitpremisesNo.97,SouthParkApartment,B
Block DDA Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi110019 to the plaintiffs forthwith.
PlaintiffsarealsoawardedarrearsofrenttothetuneofRs.84,000/(dues
ofrentforthemonthofMarchandApril,2015),damages/mesneprofits@
Rs.42,000/fortheperiodw.e.f.04.05.2015tilldateofhandingoverof
possession. Pendentelite interest @ 12% per annum and future interest
@6% per annum is also awarded in favour of plaintiffs and against
defendant on the arrears of rent and mesne profits/damages awarded
hereinabove.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly subject to payment of
deficientcourtfeesonmesneprofits/damagesawardedhereinabove.
FilebeconsignedtoRecordRoom.

(SunenaSharma)
Addl.DisttJudge03/SouthEast
SaketCourtsComplex,NewDelhi
Announced&dictatedin
theOpenCourton04.05.2016.

CSNo.373/2015AmbaSuhasiniKatochJhaza&AnrvAshokBiswal