SUDERSHAN SINHA Vs. KULDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff has initiated this Suit for eviction, possession, injunction mesne profits and damages. Pleadings have been completed. The Plaintiff has also filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the Court may "pass a judgment on admission in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants in terms of the prayer clause contained in the Suit". It cannot even be imagined how a decree for mesne profits can justifiably be granted at this stage since neither an 'admission' nor cogent evidence is available. In the interest of justice, therefore, I shall at the present moment restrict the prayer to the claim for possession/eviction alone.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the Plaintiffs are the owners of plot No. 120 B, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. The Plaint states that the Defendant was inducted as a licensee for a term of eleven months which expired on 24.7.1998. This period is stated to have been renewed by mutual agreement for further period of eleven months each on the increased licence fee of Rs. 18,000.00 per month and thereafter Rs. 22,000.4 till April 2001. It is admitted that the Defendant had paid licence fee of Rs. 22,000.00 per month till February 2001.

(3.) Consequent upon the electricity connection - in the suit premises having been disconnected due to non-payment of the Bills by the" Defendant, OMP No. 286/2003 and OMP No. 54/2004 came to be filed by him. In these proceedings Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. recorded on 27.4.2004 that - "It is agreed to by the counsel appearing for the parties that Mr. Kuldeep Singh, the Petitioner in OMP No. 54/2004 would pay to the Respondents an amount of Rs. 20,000.00 per month from March 2001 till date and also for the future months till an appropriate proceeding is taken in accordance with law." (underlining supplied) It will be worthy to underscore firstly that these Orders were passed before the issuance of three legal notices, and secondly that the amount fixed was not termed either as rent or damages.