CHARANJIT LAL MEHRA AND ORS. versus SMT. KAMAL SAROJ MAHAJAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 661 · Decided: 11-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. VENKATARAMA REDDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
CHARANJIT LAL MEHRA AND ORS. 
v. 
SMT. KAMAL SAROJ MAHAJAN AND ANR. 
MARCH I I, 2005 
[P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-0rder 12, Rule 6-Transfer of Property 
Act, 1882-Section 106-Suit for recovery of possession-Claim of tenants 
A 
B 
that there were four individual tenancies-As per Lease deed on record tenancy C 
in question was joint and not individual-Relationship of landlord and tenant 
and rate of rent admitted by tenant-Application for passing judgment on 
admission made in pleading-Dismissed by trial court-High Court passed 
decree on admission-On appeal, Held: On the basis of terms of lease deed 
and admissions made in pleadings, it can be inferred that tenancy was joint 
and tenant liable to eviction by civil court-Purpose of Order 12, R. 6 is to D 
expedite the matter, hence decree of eviction rightly passed on admitted claims...:_ 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958--Sections 3(C),6(A). 
Plaintiff-landlord had rented out the demised premises @ Rs. 2500 p.m. 
to the defendants. The rent was enhanced from time to time. In Sept., 2001, 
the monthly rent of the demised premises became Rs. 3659. Since rent E 
exceeded Rs. 3500, the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ceased to 
apply to the demised premises. Plaintiff then terminated tenancy of defendants 
by legal notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. Thereafter, he 
filed suit for recovery of possession of demised premises and for arrears of 
rent and mesne profit. In the Written Statement defendants admitted the F 
existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between them, the rate of rent 
and service of notice of termination. The defence put forth by defendants was 
that tenancy was not a joint one but a separate, independent and distinct 
tenancy of the four individuals and they were liable to pay rent individually; 
that plaintiff himself treated them as separate tenants which fact is proved 
by letter dt.17.9.92 by plaintiff in which he had refused to accept a cheque of G 
Rs. 42,000 tendered by 'Yash Pal Mehra' one of the defendants and later on 
accepted the cheque for the sum of Rs. 60,000 tendered on behalf of all four 
defendants; that the individual share of rent never reached the figure of Rs. 
3500 p.m. and hence the question of non applicability of provisions of the Delhi 
661 
H 
662 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 2 S.C.R. 
A Rent Control Act did not arise. 
At the stage of e\'idence, plaintiff filed application under 0.12, R. 6, CPC 
for passing a judgment on admissions made in the Written Statement Trial 
Court dismissed the application. On revision, Single Judge of High Court held 
that there was a common composite tenancy and passed the decree for eviction 
B on admission made. Hence the present SLP. 
Dismissing the SLP,· the Court 
HELD: 1. A perusal of the lease deed clearly shows that the demised 
premises was taken on monthly rent of Rs. 2500 by the defendants. This lease 
C deed has been executed in favour of all the defendants jointly and it is a 
composite one and not individual one. The rent stipulated in the lease deed is 
Rs. 2500 in toto and the total rent now payable is more than Rs. 3500. It cannot 
be split up in four portions so as to bring the building within the fold of Rent 
Act Therefore, the tenancy in question was a joint/composite one and is not 
an individual lease of the demised premises. The Single Judge rightly 
D commented that the letter did not indicate that there were separate tenancies. 
In fact, in the said letter, Yashpal Mehra was described as a co-tenant A 
cheque for a sum of Rs. 60,000 sent on behalf of 4 brothers was accepted by 
the landlady. The letter exchanged, therefore, in no way demolish the 
admissions flowing from the lease deed which is the primary document. 
E 
[667-H; 668-A-C] 
2. The purpose of enactment of Order 12, Rule 6, CPC is to expedite 
the trials. If there is any admission on behalf of the defendants or an admission 
can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any 
dispute, then, in such a case in order to expedite and dispose of the matter 
F such admission can be acted upon. There is clear admission on behalf of 
defendants that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenants, the rent 
is more than Rs. 3500 and tenancy is joint and composite one. As such on 
these admitted facts, the view taken by Single Judge of High Court was 
correct. [668-D-E, 669-BI 
G 
Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.