LexS. M. ASIF versus VI RENDER KUMAR BAJAJ
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 179 S. M. ASIF v. VI RENDER KUMAR BAJAJ (Civil Appeal Nos. 6106-6108 of2015) AUGUST 12, 2015 [T. 5. THAKU~, V. GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHl·JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 12 Rule 6 - Power under, scope - Discussed. Order 12 Rule 6 - .Judgment on admission - Suit for A B c eviction - Eviction decree by trial court u/Order 12 Rule 6 on the ground that defendant-tenant admitted landlord-tenant D relationship and period of lease agreement - Challenged , by tenant on the ground that the landlord had agreed to sell the suit property to him and he had paid an advance of Rs. 82.50 lacs and a suit for specific performance filed by him E was pending - Held: Trial Court ought to have opportunity afforded to the tenant to put forth his defence and contest the suit - Matter remitted to Rent Controller for fresh hearing. Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to the Rent Controller, the Court F HELD: 1. The words in Order XII Rule 6 CPC "may" and "make such order ... " show that the power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Judgment on admission is G 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 CPC. The said rule is an enabling provision H 179 180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R. A 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 B of tenancy and the period of lease agreement; but resisted respondent-plaintiff's claim by setting up a defence plea of agreement to sale. and that he paid an advance of Rs.82.50 lakhs, which was stoutly denied by the respondent-landlord. The appellant-defendant also C filed the Suit for Specific Performance, which was contested by the respondent-landlord. When such issues arising between the parties ought to be decided, mere admission of relationship of landlord and tenant D cannot be said to be an unequivocal admission to decree the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. [Para 9) [184-E-H; 185-A-B] 2. An opportunity ought to have been afforded to the appellant to put forth his defence and contest the E 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 F of eight weeks. Further the appellant shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- per month to the respondent-landlord as compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises with effect from 01.08.2015.[Para 1 OJ [185-8-D] CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. G 6106-6108 of 2015 From the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 16.10.2014 and 27.10.2014 in RFA No. 505 of 2014 and dated 19.11.2014 in RP No. 499 of 2014 in H RFA No. 505 of 2014 S. M. ASIF v. VIRENDER KUMAR BAJAJ 181 R. Basant, Samit Mukharji, Manoj K. Mishra, Sandeep A Kumar Dwivedi for the Appellant. C. U. Singh, Parveen Pahuja, Bhargava V. Desai, Saumya Mehrotra, Dhaval Mehjrotraa, Rishi Gautam for the Respondent. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in these appeals is the correctness of the C orders dated 16.10.2014 and 27.10.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi in RFA No.505/2014, whereby the High Court disposed of the appeal observing that the appellant having not pressed the appeal and by changing their counsel cannot be .allowed to plead for adjournment to argue the appeal. D Review Petition No.499/2014 also came to be dismissed by the High Courtvide order dated 19.11.2014 which is also under challenge in these appeals. 3. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as E under:- Respondent-landlord is the owner of the disputed premises which is a built up area of entire second floor with terrace/roof of the property bearing No. R-849 situated at New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi admeasuring 200 sq. yards. The appellant-tenant contended that the respondent-landlord F entered into a registered agreement for lease at a monthly rent of Rs.37 ,50
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.