RAVINDER PAL SINGH Vs. HANIF A HAROON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this second appeal filed under S. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, appellant assails the order passed by Shri S.M. Chopra, Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order passed by Shri Shailender Malik, Civil Judge, Delhi decreeing the suit under O. 12, R. 6, C.P.C. The learned Civil Judge vide order dated 2-12-2003, decreed the suit based on admissions made by the appellant. The learned Civil Judge noted that after the summons of the suit were served and filing of the written statement, statement of the appellant was recorded under O. 20. Based on the averments made in the written statement and the statement recorded under O. 10, R. 2, the learned Civil Judge reached the conclusion that the appellant had admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant and the rate of rent. The receipt of notice of termination of tenancy was also admitted. Based on these, he proceeded to decree the suit under O. 12, R. 6, C.P.C.

(2.) It appears that the appellant/defendant claimed payment of Rs. 62,000/- without any receipt, credit of which has also been given. The learned Addl. District Judge vide the appellate judgment had noted that at the instance of the appellant his statement under O. 10 was recorded for the second time. In the statements, the appellant admitted the rent agreement which was referred to as Ex. P-1. He also admitted the notice of termination of tenancy which was Ex. P-2. The appellant only contended that he had paid Rs. 62,000/- without any receipt.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant before me assails the judgment of the trial Court as well as of the appellate Court by urging that the case does not fall within the ambit of O. 12, R. 6, C.P.C. Counsel submits that the appellant had not in a clear and unambiguous terms admitted the factum of ownership. He submits that rather in the written statement appellant had denied that respondent was landlord/owner of the suit premises. However, the agreement wherein the respondent is described as the owner/landlord, is admitted. In fact the appellant himself has quoted clauses of the said agreement in the written statement.