2015 (8) TMI 1563 - SC - Indian Laws

Direction to Appellant-tenant to vacate and handover physical possession of the suit premises to the Respondent-landlord - Respondent-landlord alleges that Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the lease, he sent a legal notice through speed post on 26.12.2011 - the Appellant-tenant denied having received any such notice - HELD THAT - The words in Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure may and make such order... show that the power Under Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Judgment on admission is not a matter of right and rather is a matter of discretion of the Court. Where the Defendants have raised objections which go to the root of the case, it would not be appropriate to exercise the discretion Under Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure. The said rule is an enabling provision which confers discretion on the Court in delivering a quick judgment on admission and to the extent of the claim admitted by one of the parties of his opponent's claim. In the suit for eviction filed by the Respondent-landlord, Appellant-tenant has admitted the relationship of tenancy and the period of lease agreement; but resisted Respondent-Plaintiffs claim by setting up a defence plea of agreement to sale and that he paid an advance of Rs. 82.50 lakhs, which of course is stoutly denied by the Respondent-landlord. The Appellant-Defendant also filed the Suit for Specific Performance, which of course is contested by the Respondent-landlord. When such issues arising between the parties ought to be decided, mere admission of relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be said to be an unequivocal admission to decree the suit Under Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure. An opportunity has to be afforded to the Appellant to put forth his defence and contest the suit and therefore, the matter is to be remitted to the trial court for a fresh hearing, however, subject to the condition that the Appellant should pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 44,000/- per month within a period of eight weeks - Having regard to the said order passed by the trial court, payment of sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month would also be subject to the final outcome of the eviction suit as well as the suit for specific performance. The matter is remitted back to the Rent Controller for consideration of the matter afresh and the appeals are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Correctness of the orders passed by the High Court of Delhi in RFA No. 505/2014 and Review Petition No. 499/2014.
2. Disputed premises ownership and lease agreements between the Appellant-tenant and Respondent-landlord.
3. Termination of lease under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and subsequent legal proceedings.
4. Appellant-tenant's defense plea of agreement to sale and payment of advance.
5. Applicability and discretion under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6. Decision on remitting the matter back to the trial court for fresh hearing and payment conditions.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Correctness of the High Court's Orders:
The appeals challenged the correctness of the orders passed by the High Court of Delhi in RFA No. 505/2014 and Review Petition No. 499/2014. The High Court disposed of the appeal observing that the Appellant-tenant changing counsel cannot plead for adjournment to argue the appeal. The Appellant-tenant sought time to vacate the premises but later changed counsel and requested an adjournment, which was declined. The Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the Rent Controller for fresh consideration, setting aside the impugned orders.

2. Disputed Premises Ownership and Lease Agreements:
The Respondent-landlord owned the disputed premises, and lease agreements were entered into with the Appellant-tenant for specific periods at varying monthly rents. A subsequent agreement of sale was also alleged to have taken place between the parties. The Respondent-landlord initiated legal proceedings for possession, mesne profits, and injunction, leading to the current dispute.

3. Termination of Lease and Legal Proceedings:
The Respondent-landlord terminated the lease under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and initiated legal action when the Appellant-tenant allegedly did not vacate the premises. The trial court passed an order directing the Appellant-tenant to vacate and hand over possession, leading to the appeal in the High Court.

4. Defense Plea of Agreement to Sale and Payment of Advance:
The Appellant-tenant raised a defense plea of an agreement to sale and claimed to have paid a substantial advance amount. The Respondent-landlord contested these claims, alleging the agreement was fabricated. The trial court's decree for eviction under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure was challenged on these grounds.

5. Applicability of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The Supreme Court analyzed the discretion under Order XII Rule 6, emphasizing that judgment on admission is discretionary and not a matter of right. The Court noted that the Appellant-tenant's defense raised substantial issues requiring a full trial, rather than a summary judgment under Order XII Rule 6.

6. Decision on Remitting the Matter Back to the Trial Court:
Considering the stand taken by the parties, the Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the trial court for a fresh hearing. The Court imposed conditions on the Appellant-tenant regarding payment of arrears of rent and compensation for use and occupation of the premises. The trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.