RAGHUBIR SARAN CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. ARUN KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 30.03.2012, passed by the A. D. J. (Central-03) Delhi, whereby the Petitioner/landlord's application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the C. P. C, was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner is a trust by the name of Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust. The brief facts of the case are, the petitioner let out the premises bearing No. E-9 located in the inner circle of Connaught Place, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises") in 1984 to the respondents at a monthly rental of Rs. 585.50. This lease amount increased subsequently and in 2000, it became Rs. 3660.50 per month. On 07.06.200, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondents terminating their tenancy and requiring them to hand over possession of the suit premises. Due to non compliance of the notice, the petitioner filed a suit for possession and mesne profits initially in the High Court on 31.07.2000, which was subsequently transferred to the District Court on 04.11.2003, as the pecuniary jurisdiction had changed. The petitioner filed application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC to seek decree alleging that the written statement filed by the respondents contained unambiguous and unequivocal admissions as to the; a) existence of a landlord tenant relationship; b) rate of rent being higher than Rs. 3500/- per month; c) receipt of a notice terminating the tenancy. The Addl. District Judge passed an order on 11.05.2004, decreeing the petitioner's suit for possession. An RFA was moved by the respondents, wherein this Court set aside the order of the Addl. District Judge, observing certain factual inaccuracies in the aid judgment and remanded the case back for de-novo consideration, giving the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application under Order 112 Rule 6 CPC in the Trial Court. Accordingly, a fresh application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC was filed on 25.01.2008, praying for decree of possession. The application was dismissed by the Ld. A. D. J. on 30.03.2012. This order is under challenge in the present petition.

(3.) The petitioner has based arguments on the ground that in the written statement filed by the respondents, there had been an unambiguous and unequivocal admission as noted above and this entitles the landlord to a decree of possession under Order 12 Rule 6 of the C. P. C.