M/S PAYAL VISION LTD. versus RADHIKA CHOUDHARY

Citation: [2012] 7 S.C.R. 1160 · Decided: 20-09-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 1160 
M/S PAYAL VISION LTD. 
v. 
RADHIKA CHOUDHARY 
(Civil Appeal No. 6734 of 2012) 
SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 
[T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: 
c 
0.12, r.6 - Judgment on admissions - Held: In a suit for 
recovery of possession from a tenant whose tenancy is not 
protected under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, 
plaintiff-landlord is required to establish the existence of jural 
relationship of landlord and tenant between parties and 
D termination of tenancy either by lapse of time or by notice 
served - In the instant case, the averments made in the plaint 
and the written statement clearly establish admissions by 
tenant on both the aspects - Trial court was perfectly justified 
in decreeing the suit for possession filed by the appellant by 
E invoking its powers under 0. 12 r. 6 - Transfer of Property Act, 
1882 - s.106. 
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 : 
s. 116 - Estoppel - Applicability of. 
F 
The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for possession and 
recovery of mesne profit with the averments, inter alia, 
that it had let out the suit property along with the super 
structure to the defendant for residential requirement at 
a monthly rent of Rs.50,000/-; and that since the 
G defendant made substantial super structural changes in 
the premises and did not comply with the terms of the 
lease agreement, a notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of 
Property Act, 1882 (TP Act) was served upon him 
H 
1160 
PAYAL VISION LTD. v. RADHIKA CHOUDHARY 
1161 
terminating the tenancy. After the defendant filed the 
A 
written statement, the plaintiff filed an application under 
0.12 r.6, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for decree 
for possession on admissions. The trial court allowed the 
application and decreed the suit for possession holding 
that the jural relationship of the landlord and tenant was 
B 
admitted between the parties and so was the rate of rent 
settled and the service of notice terminating the tenancy. 
However, in the first appeal of the tenant, the High Court 
set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial 
court holding that there was no clear admission by the c 
defendant either regarding relationship of landlord and 
tenant between the parties or the service of notice of 
termination of the tenancy upon the defendant, and 
remanded the matter back to it for disposal afresh. 
Allowing the appeal filed by the landlord, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In a suit for recovery of possession from 
a tenant whose tenancy is not protected under the 
provisions of the Rent Control Act, all that is required to 
D 
be established by the plaintiff-landlord is the existence of 
E 
the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the 
parties and the termination of the tenancy either by lapse 
of time or by notice served by the landlord uls 106 of the 
T.P. Act. So long as these two aspects are not in dispute, 
the court can pass a decree in terms of 0.12, r.6, CPC. 
F 
Whether or not there is a clear admission upon the said 
two aspects is a matter to be seen in the fact situation 
prevailing in each case. In the instant case, the tenancy 
in question is not protected under the Rent Control Act 
hav.ing regard to the fact that the rate of rent is more than 
G 
Rs. 35001- per month. [Para 6-7 and 11] [1166-G-H; 1167-
A-F; 1170-E] 
Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. v. Jasbir Singh Chadha 
(2010) 6 sec 601 ::: 2010 (6) SCR 546 - relied on. 
H 
1162 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2 When placed in juxtaposition, the averments 
made in the plaint and the written statement clearly spell 
out an admission by the defendant that the lease 
agreement dated 10.10.2001 was indeed executed 
between the parties. It is also evident that the monthly 
8 rent was settled at Rs.50,000/- which fact too is clearly 
admitted by the defendant although according to the 
defendant, the said amount represented rent for 
commercial use of the premises and not residential 
purposes as alleged by the plaintiff. [Para 1 O] [1169-C-D] 
c 
1.3 Suffice it to say that the averments made in the 
written statement clearly accept the existence of the jural 
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties 
no matter the lease agreement was not duly registered. 
Whether the tenancy was for residential or commercial 
D use of the property is wholly immaterial for the grant of a 
decree for possession. Even if the premises were let out 
for commercial and non-residential use, the fac

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