Skip to main content

Mere admission of landlord and tenant relationship is not enough to decree the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC

Cause Title : Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 4545 Of 2022, Supreme Court Of India

Date of Judgment/Order : 06-07-2022

Corum : J.K. Maheshwari, J.

Citied: Shrimant Rao Suryavanshi v. Prahlad Bhairoba Suryavanshi - 2002 (3) SCC 676

         Hari Steel and General Industries Limited and Another v. Daljit Singh and Others – (2019) 20 SCC 425

            Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd reported in - 2011 (15) SCC 273

            R. Kanthimathi v. Beatrice Xavier reported in - 2000 (9) SCC 339

            Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalptram Iccharam - 1974 (1) SCC 242

            S.M. Asif v. Virendar Kumar Bajaj – (2015) 9 SCC 287

Background

The Respondent-Landlord entered into a Lease Agreement dated 07.08.2011 with the Appellant, namely M/s. Fantasy Lights, on monthly rental basis  24 months starting from 07.08.2011 till 07.08.2013 and interest free security deposit was paid by the Appellant at the time of the execution of the Lease Agreement. After the expiry of the Lease Agreement, an extended Lease Agreement for subsequent term of 11 months was executed on 07.08.2013 with rent increase which was to expire on 06.07.2014. The Security Deposit paid earlier was retained for the extension. 

The Appellant tenant did not pay any rent after the expiry of the extended Lease Agreement dated 06.07.2014 with effect from 07.07.2014 and continued in occupation of the Suit Property. A Legal Notice was served by the Respondent landlord upon the Appellant calling him to vacate the Suit Property. However, even thereafter, neither the Suit Property was vacated, nor the rent was paid which led the Respondent/Plaintiff to file Civil Suit. The Appellant/Defendant filed a Written Statement contending that after the expiry of the Lease Agreement dated 07.08.2013, the Respondent/Plaintiff had approached to him and made the offer to sell the right, title and interest in the Suit Property, in furtherance of which Agreement to Sell dated 22.04.2017 (herein after referred as ATS-I) was executed between the parties for a sum of Rs.3,60,00,000/- and it was allegedly agreed that the rent accrued for the year 2014- 2017 be adjusted into the said Agreement to Sell. Appellant also contended that in addition to the execution of ATS-I, he also agreed to transfer its right, title and interest of a plot of land situated at Amloh in favor of Respondent for a consideration of Rs.15 Lakhs through Agreement to Sell (ATS-II) which would partially satisfy the obligations of sale consideration of ATS-I. Further, it was averred in the Written Statement that certain adjustments were made to the consideration payable for the subject property consequent to a new Agreement to Sell (ATS-III) was executed.

In view of the averments made in Written Statement filed by the Appellant/Defendant in Civil Suit No.867 of 2018, the Respondent/Plaintiff filed an Application under Order XII Rule 6 and another application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) with a prayer to pass a judgment on admission of facts made in Written Statement and to draw a decree accordingly.

The contention of the Respondent/Plaintiff before the Trial Court was that looking to the admissions made with respect to the Landlord-Tenant relationship, rate of rent and the defence taken by the Appellant/Defendant in Written Statement is sham, as no consideration was exchanged.

The Trial Court decided that the facts are in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff and ignored the various settlements as those documents were not registered and no consideration was paid by the Appellant/Defendant. The High Court rejected the appeal filed by the Appellant/Defendant noting that there has been clear admission with regard to relationship of Landlord- Tenant and the rent paid by the Appellant. Hence this appeal.

Judgment

The Supreme Court observed that the scheme of Order XII Rule 1 prescribes that any party to a suit may give notice, by his pleading, or otherwise in writing that he admits the truth of whole or any part of the case to other party while Rule 6 confers discretionary power to a Court who may at any stage of the suit or suits on the application of any party or in its own motion and without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties makes such order or gives such judgment as it may think fit having regard to such admission. 

Thus, legislative intent is clear by using the word may and as it may think fit to the nature of admission. The said provision has been brought with intent that if admission of facts raised by one side is admitted by other, and the Court is satisfied to the nature of admission, then the parties are not compelled for full-fledged trial and the judgment and order can be directed without taking any evidence. Therefore, to save the time and money of the Court and respective parties, the said provision has been brought in the statute.

Referring to a similar issue addressed in  S.M. Asif  (supra), the court noted that in the said case, this Court was of the view that deciding such issues requires appreciation of evidence. Mere relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be said to be an unequivocal admission to decree the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.

The Supreme Court held that while the tenancy has been admitted, so has the signing of various sale agreements though they are unregistered and  the arguments advanced by both the sides, can be appreciated by the Trial Court by affording opportunity to them to lead evidence. 

The Supreme Court said that in view of the contents of those agreements and terms specified therein, the defence as taken by the Appellant/Defendant is plausible or not is a matter of trial which may be appreciated by the Court after granting opportunity to lead evidence by the respective parties. There may be admission with respect to tenancy as per lease agreements but the defense as taken is also required to be looked into by the Court and there is need to decide justiciability of defense by the full-fledged trial. In our view, for the purpose of Order XII Rule 6, the said admission is not clear and categorical, so as to exercise a discretion by the Court without dealing with the defense as taken by Defendant.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more