1. The petitioner vide the present petition assails the impugned orders dated 19.07.2014 and 04.10.2016 of the learned Civil Judge, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CS No.194/2012 (New No.58725/2016). Vide order dated 19.07.2014, the application filed by the petitioner herein i.e. the plaintiff of the said suit under Order XII Rule 6 seeking a judgment and decree of possession in favour of the petitioner herein i.e. the plaintiff of the said suit and against the defendants to the said suit i.e. the respondents herein in respect of Flat No.C-4/26-B, Lawrence Road, Delhi-110035 based on admissions made in the written statement, was dismissed with it having been observed to the effect that there had been no unequivocal or clear admission made by the defendants to entitle the plaintiff to a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC reads to the effect:
“Judgment on admissions-
(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn upon in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.”
2. Vide order dated 04.10.2016, the application dated 27.08.2014 filed by the petitioner herein before the learned Civil Judge seeking a review of the order dated 19.07.2014 under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 and Section 151 of the CPC was declined with it having been held that there was no mistake nor error apparent on the face of the record nor any sufficient reason for review of the order dated 19.07.2014 with it having been reiterated that there was no unequivocal or clear admission made by the defendants sufficient for passing a decree and judgment under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC, 1908.
3. Notice of the present petition was issued to the respondents. Submissions have been made on behalf of either side and in terms of directions dated 15.02.2019, it was considered essential to peruse the TCR, which has since been received and perused.
4. The plaintiff of CS No.194/2012 (new No. 58725/2016) i.e. the petitioner herein sought recovery of possession, recovery or arrears of rent, damages and mesne profit with regard to Flat No.C-4/26-B, Lawrence Road, Delhi-110035 alleging that the defendants i.e. the respondent nos.1 & 2 herein have trespassed in the suit property and claiming to be the owner of the suit property and stated that he had purchased the same from one Sh. Subhash Jindal on 24.08.2000 and that Sh. Subhash Jindal had purchased the said suit property from the defendant nos.1 & 2 i.e. the respondents herein vide agreement to sell and other documents executed on 05.11.1998. As per the plaintiff of that suit i.e. the petitioner herein, at the time of sale of the suit property to Sh. Subhash Jindal, the defendants represented to him that they were trying to find a suitable accommodation and till then they may be allowed to stay in a portion of the suit property as tenant thereof as a consequence of which, a rent agreement dated 05.11.1998 was executed between Sh. Subhash Jindal and the defendant no.2 and thus the defendant no.2 i.e. the respondent no.2 herein along with his family occupied two rooms along with a toilet cum bathroom as tenant in the said suit property at the monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/- with the remaining portion having remained under the possession of Sh. Subhash Jindal. It was claimed by the plaintiff i.e. the petitioner herein that subsequently, when he purchased the said suit property on 24.08.2000, a fresh rent agreement was executed between the defendant no. 2 i.e. the respondent no.2 herein and the plaintiff i.e. the petitioner herein in respect of the portion of the suit property which was already in occupation of the defendants at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,500/-. The petitioner herein further claims that on 10.05.2011 through his counsel, he got served a notice upon the defendant no.2 for increase of the monthly rent by 18% which was responded by the defendant no.2 i.e. the respondent no.2 herein vide reply dated 20.05.2011 denying the contents of the said notice and that the plaintiff i.e. the petitioner herein again served a notice on 20.12.2011 terminating the tenancy of the defendant no.2 i.e. the respondent no.2 herein which was also duly replied by the defendant no. 2 i.e. the respondent no.2 vide reply dated 30.12.2011 thereby denying the contents of the said notice.
5. The defendants of the suit in which the impugned orders were passed had filed a suit against the plaintiff therein as also against the Shri Subhash Jindal with Sh. Subhash Jindal being arrayed as the defendant no.1 and the plaintiff being arrayed as the defendant no.2 in CS No.107/2006 wherein vide judgment and decree dated 23.02.2010, the defendants of that suit i.e. Shri Subhash Jindal and the present petitioner were restrained by way of an injunction from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs of CS No.107/2006 i.e. the defendants to CS No.194/2012 i.e. the respondents herein from two rooms, toilet cum bathroom located in the suit property as per the site plain of the defendants to that suit.
6. It is essential to observe that the suit CS No.107/2006 instituted on 05.02.2001 by the plaintiffs thereof i.e. the respondent nos.1 & 2 herein was one with the following prayers:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that a decree for permanent injunction may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against' the defendants restraining the defendants, their legal heirs, attorneys, associates, representatives etc. etc. from dispossessing illegally and peaceful enjoyment of the possession of Flat No.C-4/25-B, Lawrence Road, Delhi-SS, to the. Plaintiff with costs.
It is further prayed that a decree for mandatory injunction may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, directing them to return/hand-over all of the original documents relating to the allotment of the Flat No.C-4/26-B, Lawrence Road, Delhi, and other blank and stamp signed Papers taken away by the defendant no.1 in the garb of safety of the loan on 5.11.1998 to the plaintiffs with costs.”
7. In the said suit, the plaintiffs thereof i.e. the respondent nos.1 & 2 herein had claimed that they have purchased the Flat No.C-4/26-B, Lawrence Road, Delhi-110035 from one Shri Harbans Singh on 03.08.1982 and had received the possession of the said flat from him along with original documents which stood in the name of Sh. Gurmeet Singh s/o Sh. Lal Singh in the D.D.A. record and that the plaintiffs i.e. the respondents herein had been regularly making the payment of the maintenance charge and lease money of the flat in question and also house tax up to date and were still in possession of the flat in question and they had applied for free-hold ship of the flat in question in the Delhi Development Authority and paid the requisite charges along with the documents as required by the D.D.A. The defendant no.1 to the suit filed by the present petitioner bearing No.194/2012 visited the house of the respondents herein on 05.11.1998 on the call of the plaintiffs as they were going through the financial hardships and Shri Subhash Jindal had agreed to pay the loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- to them subject to keeping in safe custody the original documents of the flat in questions i.e. original allotment letter and other documents and that he also took the signatures of the plaintiffs i.e. the respondents herein on some blank and stamp papers and in as much as the plaintiffs of that suit i.e. the respondents herein had no other alternative at that time due to their financial hardship, they accepted the offer of the defendant no.1 therein i.e. Shri Subhash Jindal and executed the papers and signed on blank papers and stamp papers on the terms dictated to them by the defendant no.1 thereof i.e. Shri Subhash Jindal. According to the plaintiffs of that suit i.e. the respondents herein, they returned all the loan amount along with interest to the defendant no.1 i.e. Shri Subhash Jindal who had assured that he would return back all the original papers and valuable securities to the plaintiffs as soon as possible and executed an Indemnity Bond and undertaking in favour of the plaintiff no.1 i.e. the respondent no.1 herein and that on 24.08.2000, the defendant no.1 of that suit i.e. Shri Subhash Jindal called the plaintiff no.2 expressing his desire to release all of the original documents in compliance of the terms of the Indemnity Bond and undertaking executed by him in favour of the respondent nos.1 & 2 herein due to their very good relations between them and that the respondent nos.1 & 2 herein thereafter visited the house of the defendant no.1 thereof i.e. Shri Subhash Jindal and thereafter the plaintiff of that suit i.e. the respondent no.1 herein and the and the defendant no.1 thereof i.e. Shri Subhash Jindal visited the shop of one typist and on the insistence and giving his assurance that the same is the necessity so as to release the original documents of the plaintiff, he thus put his signature on blank papers and the typist fixed a time to deliver the same on 28.08.2000 and thus the defendant no.1 thereof i.e. Shri Subhash Jindal and the plaintiff i.e. the respondent no.1 agreed to execute the same before the Sub-Registrar on 28.08.2000 and according to the time fixed between the defendant no.1 thereof i.e. Shri Subhash Jindal and the plaintiff no.2 i.e. the respondent no.2 herein, the plaintiff no. 2, respondent no.2 herein and the plaintiff no.1, respondent no.1 herein visited the typist office on 28.08.2000 wherein the typist explained that the defendant no.1 to that suit i.e. Shri Subhash Jindal had taken away all the papers on 24.08.2000 itself whereafter, the respondents herein/ the plaintiffs of the suit said claimed that they had visited the defendant no.1 thereof i.e. Shri Subhash Jindal several times who kept assuring that he would return the papers but lastly refused to return the same and that on 03.02.2001 thereafter, in the night hours, some unidentified persons turned up who had also previously turned up on 27.01.2001 in the late hours threatening with dire consequences if the plaintiffs i.e. the respondents herein did not hand over the possession to them but on 03.02.2001 they came again and threatened the plaintiffs i.e. the respondents herein with dire consequences in relation to their life, limbs and properties, if they did not hand over the possession of the flat to the defendant no.2 of that suit being the present petitioner within two days and the respondent nos.1 & 2 submitted that they contacted Shri Subhash Jindal to ascertain what was the reason for the same but he threatened Shri Anil Kumar Bhasin, the respondent no.2 herein with dire consequences, if the respondents herein failed to hand over the possession of the flat in question to the defendant no.2 to that suit within two days i.e. to the present petitioner.
8. The said suit filed by the respondents herein against Shri Subhash Jindal and Shri Vir Singh, being the present petitioner as already observed elsewhere hereinabove was disposed of vide judgment dated 23.02.2010 in Suit No.107/2006 with the grant of an injunction against Shri Subhash Jindal and the present petitioner from forcibly dispossessing the respondents herein from two rooms, toilet cum bathroom located in the suit property Flat No.C-4/26-B, Lawrence Road, Delhi-110035 as per the site plan of the defendant. It is essential to observe that the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 23.02.2010 in Suit No.107/2006 vide para 9 thereof had observed to the effect:
“9. The permanent injunction prayed for by the plaintiffs is that they should not be dispossessed from the suit property forcibly and illegally. Although various different facts pertaining to the ownership of the suit property have been mentioned in the pleadings, as mentioned above and even evidence has been led on the same, however, as the present suit is a suit for injunction against forcible dispossession, therefore, the evidence and arguments pertaining to ownership of the suit property and other facts are not being discussed here at length. However in the interest of justice all the documents placed on record have been examined, although no finding on the ownership over the suit property is being given as doing the same shall be beyond the preview of this suit. The documents relied by the parties to establish ownership over the suit property are enumerated below in the following paragraphs”,
thus thereby no finding on the ownership of the suit property was arrived at in Suit No.107/2006 by the learned trial Court observing that the same was beyond the purview of the suit filed by the respondents herein seeking the injunction prayed for observing also to the effect that the prayer made by the respondents herein i.e. the plaintiffs of that suit for the grant of mandatory injunction seeking the return of original documents as well as blank papers and stamp papers taken away by Shri Subhash Jindal as collateral security of the loan on 05.11.1998 had been withdrawn.
9. The statement dated 06.02.2010 made by the respondent no.2 as plaintiff no.2 of CS No. 107/2006 reads to the effect:
“I do not press relief for mandatory injunction as the documents have become redundant and only press for relief no.1 i.e. permanent injunction.”
10. On behalf of the respondent no.1 arrayed as the plaintiff no.1 to that suit, counsel for the plaintiff no.1 i.e. the respondent no.1 herein stated on 23.02.2010 to the effect:
“I have instructions on behalf of plaintiff no.1 to state that she does not press for the relief of mandatory injunction as documents have become redundant and she only presses for the relief no.1 i.e. relief of permanent injunction against forcible dispossession. The prayer for mandatory injunction be accordingly, dismissed as not pressed for.”
11. The records of CS No.194/2012 (now bearing no. 58725/2016) which have been requisitioned indicate that in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant no.2 therein i.e. the respondent no.2 herein, it had been categorically averred vide preliminary objection no.3 to the effect:
“That the possession of the property referred to above was transferred in favour of defendant No. 1 by Harbans Singh, Attorney of Shri Gurmeet Singh and defendant No. 1 along with her family is in possession since 1982 and she never parted with her possession. He executed an Agreement to Sell and other papers in favour of the defendant No. 1 on 03.08.1982 and the defendant No. 1 came in possession of the aforesaid property on 03.08.1982 itself after paying consideration amount of Rs.10,000/-. The defendant No. 1 in part performance of the - contract/agreement, came in possession of the property and she continued to be in possession till date of the aforesaid property and after coming into possession in 1982, she made investment in the property, renovated the same and added the .property and invested money time to time and spent more than Rs. 5,31, 000/-. The defendant No.1 has performed and willing to perform her part of contract/agreement. The defendant No. 1 and her family is in possession since 1982 onwards and are still in possession of the same and portion of the. Property recently built has been let out on rent.”
12. Vide preliminary objection no.9, it was submitted by the respondent no.2 i.e. the defendant no.2 to that suit to the effect:
“9.That the suit of the plaintiff is based on inadmissible documents and the same has been manipulated arid manufactured by him in collusion with Subhash Jindal who . himself was having no right in the property at any time. The defendant No. 1 has never executed any Attorney in favour of Subhash Jindal. The alleged Will and other documents have already been cancelled vide notice dated 09.03.2010. The said documents have not been executed for the purposes recorded therein. Sh. Subhash Jindal obtained signatures on blank papers, stamp papers and the said papers are being used by him without consent and knowledge of the answering defendant. No right vests with Subhash Jindal in the suit property and the said manipulated papers, referred in the plaint does not relate to the suit property and it relates to different property. No ownership right accrued or vests with Subhash Jindal at any time. The Will is also not operative as the person is alive. Moreover, the same has been cancelled along with other documents.
13. Vide preliminary objection nos.13 & 14, it was submitted by the respondent no.2 i.e. the defendant no.2 to that suit to the effect:
“13. That Sh. Subhash Jindal is/was not holding any title papers required under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
14. That the defendant No. 2 was. Never holding any title or right in the suit property and he Was never the owner of the same. The alleged attorney in favour of defendant No. 2 comes to an end on the death of Gurmeet Singh as well as his Attorney Harbans Singh.”
14. Furthermore, vide para 4 of the written statement of the defendant no.2 i.e. the respondent no.2 herein to the suit filed by the present petitioner it was categorically averred to the effect that the respondent no.1 was in possession of the entire property since 1982 and constructed the property in the year 2011 onwards and initially there were two rooms, kitchen and bath room and other construction was added in 2011 by investing a sum of Rs.5,31,000/- and that the rooms which the petitioner herein i.e. the plaintiff of the suit 194/2012 claimed to be in possession were not in existence in November, 1998 as alleged by the petitioner herein.
15. It is significant that vide reply dated 30.12.2011 to a legal notice dated 20.12.2011 as issued by the petitioner herein i.e. the plaintiff of the CS No.194/2012, the respondent no.2 herein i.e. the defendant no.2 to that suit had categorically claimed that the defendant no.2 was never a tenant under the present petitioner and stated that the respondent no.2 herein had already sent notices and informed the petitioner herein that the property was owned by Smt. Chander Lata, the respondent no.1 herein and that she has cancelled all documents executed in favour of Shri Subhash Jindal i.e. the defendant no.1 to CS No.107/2006 and that thus there exists no relation of land and tenant between the parties.
16. On 28.07.2001, during the course of proceedings in CS No.107/2006, the statement under Order X Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC of the respondent no.1 herein and of the defendant no.1 to CS No.107/2006 was recorded vide which the respondent no.1 stated to the effect:
“It is correct that rent agreement bear my signature. But I put the signature on blank papers and rent agreement was later on drafted. It is correct that the rent agr
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
eement bear the stamp and ticket of Notary but said stamp of Notary not affixed when my signature was obtained. Our signature were obtained on the aforesaid document as a collateral security as we have taken loan Rs.2,50,000/- from Sh. Subhash Jindal. We have taken the loan as marriage of my daughter was held on 22.11.1998 and our signature were obtained on 05.11.1998.” 17. Thus, it is apparent on a consideration of the rival submissions that have been made during the course of litigation in CS No.107/2006 as well as in CS No.194/2012 as rightly held by the learned trial Court that there is no unequivocal admission made by the respondent nos.1 & 2 through their pleadings in CS No.107/2006 nor any positive admission made by the defendant to CS No.194/2012 in the course of the proceedings in CS No.107/2006 as sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner herein, in as much as the respondent no.1 has categorically stated that her signatures had been obtained for a collateral security as she had taken a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from Shri Subhash Jindal for the marriage of her daughter, which was to be held on 22.11.1998 and that her signatures had been taken on a blank paper with the rent agreement being drafted later on. 18. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in as much as the judgment in CS No.107/2006 dated 23.02.2010 was not challenged by the respondent nos.1 and 2 herein i.e. plaintiff of CS No.107/2006, the factum of tenancy of the respondent nos.1 & 2 in two rooms, toilet cum bathroom in the suit property in question stood conclusively established and in as much as the said tenancy had been terminated by the petitioner herein, the petitioner was entitled to the recovery of the possession of the said premises qua which it is essential to observe that for the grant of a permanent injunction simplicitor against forcible dispossession from a suit property, the determination of the relationship between the parties to the suit property and the title of the suit property cannot be made. 19. In the circumstances, the petition is declined. 20. The TCR be returned.