KARAN KAPOOR versus MADHURI KUMAR

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 677 · Decided: 06-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
677
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 677
677
KARAN KAPOOR
v.
MADHURI KUMAR
(Civil Appeal No. 4645 of 2022)
JULY 06, 2022
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.12, r.6 – Judgment on
Admission – Appellant was a tenant in the residential property owned
by respondent – Respondent-landlord entered into lease agreement
with appellant from 07.08.2011 to 07.08.2013 – Thereafter, lease
deed was extended for subsequent term of 11 months on 07.08.2013
–Appellant did not pay rent after expiry of lease agreement on
07.07.2014 – Legal notice by respondent to appellant to vacate the
property –Respondent-plaintiff filed suit for recovery of possession,
rent, mesne profit, pendent lite and interest –Appellant-defendant filed
written statement contending that after expiry of lease agreement
dated 07.08.2013, respondent had approached him to sell suit
property, in furtherance of which agreement to sell (ATS-I) was
executed between the parties for Rs.3.60 crores and the rent accrued
for the year 2014-2017 be adjusted in the said ATS-I – Also, another
agreement to sell (ATS-II) was entered for a plot situated at Amloh
for Rs. 15 lakhs –Respondent-plaintiff filed application u/Or.12,
r.6 –Trial Court relying upon the admission made in the written
statement, passed judgment and decree u/Or.12, r.6 for delivery of
possession in favour of respondent – High Court dismissed the
Regular First Appeal – On appeal, held: In view of the contents of
the agreements and terms specified therein, the defense 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 full-fledged trial – For the purpose
of Or.12, r.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 the defendant –Therefore, judgment and decree passed
by the trial Court as confirmed by the High Court is set aside.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
678
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. As per the pleadings, there may be admission to
the extent of execution of the Lease Agreement, rate of rent and
monthly payment but simultaneously the defense taken by the
Defendant is also based on ATS-I, II and III. In view of the
contents of those agreements and terms specified therein, the
defense 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 view of this Court, 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. As this court is
conscious that any observation made by this Court may affect the
merit of either side, therefore, we are not recording any finding
either on the issue of tenancy or with respect to the defense as
taken by the Defendant. We are only inclined to say whether the
judgment and decree passed in exercise of the power under Order
XII Rule 6 of CPC is based on clear and categorical admission.
In view of this Court, the facts of the case in hand and the
judgment in S.M. Asif are altogether similar, therefore, the ratio
of the said judgment rightly applies to the present case.
Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court, as confirmed by the High Court, only on admission of fact
without considering the defense in exercise of power under Order
XII Rule 6 of CPC is hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted
back to the Trial Court to decide the suit as expeditiously as
possible affording due opportunity to the parties to record
evidence that shall be appreciated by the Court on merit. [Para
22][691-A-F]
Shrimant Rao Suryavanshi v. Prahlad Bhairoba
Suryavanshi (2002) 3 SCC 676 : [2002] 1SCR 393;
Hari Steel and General Industries Limited and Another
v. Daljit Singhand Others (2019) 20 SCC 425; Himani
Alloys

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