DEEPAK RASTOGI Vs. FLEXI RESOURCE SOLUTION PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) against the order dated 27.11.2010 passed by ld. Civil Judge, whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for decree of possession was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the mother of the petitioner, Vijaylaxmi Rastogi executed a lease deed dated 11.09.2004 in favor of the respondent company in respect of her property no. 609, Madhuban, 55, Nehru Place, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as suit premises) for a period of three years. Late Vijaylaxmi Rastogi bequeathed the suit premises to the petitioner by way of Will dated 17.02.2007. Upon expiry of the period of lease in September 2007, the petitioner allegedly sent a legal notice dated 05.12.2007 to the respondent, calling for vacating the suit premises. The petitioner then proceeded to file a suit for possession, mesne profits and damages against the respondent, presently pending in the Court of ld. Civil Judge. The respondent filed the written statement along with various objections regarding the maintainability of the suit and out rightly denied the receipt of legal notice. The petitioner then moved an application under Order 39 Rule 6 of CPC wherein the respondent was directed by the court vide order dated 15.12.2009 to pay the arrears of admitted rent from January 2008 and also the rent on monthly basis till the disposal of the suit.

(3.) The petitioner then moved an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC before the ld. Civil Judge for a decree on admission. It was claimed by the petitioner that although the respondent has denied the receipt of legal notice, but the fact of tenancy has not been denied and based on the presumption which is drawn in regard to delivery of legal notice, the respondent should be deemed to have received the legal notice and prayed for a decree of possession. Dismissing the said application, the ld. Civil Judge observed that there has never been any admission on behalf of the respondent regarding receipt of legal notice. It was concluded by the ld. Civil Judge that admission must be made either orally or in writing and cannot be presumed by mere sending a legal notice without any proof of its service.