SOURABH AGARWAL Vs. MEGH RAJ MANSHARAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the concurrent judgments of the Courts below; of the trial Court dated 8.10.2012 and the appellate Court dated 31.7.2013; by which the suit for possession filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

(2.) In Delhi, in order to maintain the suit for possession in a civil court against the tenant, it is necessary that the following facts must exist:-

(3.) In the present case, there is no dispute as to the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties and also that the rate of rent of the premises is more than Rs.3,500/- per month. Both these admissions are specifically contained in paragraph 2 of the reply on merits and para 12 of the preliminary objections of the written-statement of the appellant-defendant. In fact, these aspects are also not disputed before me and dispute is only raised with respect to lack of termination of tenancy, and that once there is a disputed question of fact with respect to termination of tenancy, the suit it is argued could not have been decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. In support of this argument on behalf of the appellant, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Limited Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) and Anr., 2010 6 SCC 601 which holds that admissions must be clear and unambiguous before the same are relied upon for the purpose of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.