ABDUL HAMID Vs. CHARANJIT LAL MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits in respect of the ground floor of property bearing No. G-6, N.D.S.E., Part-1, New Delhi. Issues had been framed in this matter and the matter was listed in the category of 'Finals'. Applicants/ plaintiffs filed an application under the provisions of Order 12, Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') stating, inter alia, that the defendants have relied upon the documents purporting to be a lease deed dated 2.12.1986, though, the plaintiffs have denied the execution or legal validity of said lease deed. In para-2 of the 'Reply on Merit' in the written statement, the defendants have also admitted that the rate of rent was Rs. 6,000.00 per month. In the aforesaid lease deed dated 2.12.1986, Clause-2 thereof reads as under :

(2.) That the period of this lease has been fixed at 119 months beginning from 2.12.1986 and ending on 1.11.1996. As such, the present lease deed shall expire by efflux of time on 2.11.1996.

(3.) Lengthy arguments were advanced by late Dr. Shankar Ghose and later on by Mr. P. Chidambaram on behalf of defendants, inter ulia, that issues were framed on 6.11.1992 and the parties have led their evidence and the matter is listed in the 'Finals', therefore, the present application has been made mala fidely. It has been contended by non-applicants/defendants that in such circumstances, it would be appropriate to decide the suit by adjudicating all the issues that have been framed and in support of his contentions, has cited Punjab Natiotul Bank & Anr. v. S. Kartar Singh, 66(1997) DLT 857, which was later on followed by Kanti Singh & Ors. v. Project & Enuipment Corporilton of India Limited l997' VIAD (Delhi) 153-Another submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the defendants was that the written statement has to be read as a whole, therefore, taking into totality the defence taken by the defendants, it could not be said that there was an admission which warrants a judgment amounting to decree of possession in favour of the' plaintiffs. In support of his arguments, he has cite") the case of Dudh Nath Pandey (Dead by LRs) v. Suresh Chandra Bhattasali (Dead by L " AIR 1986 SC 1509.