Mohd. Irfan vs Hasan Mian Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs & Anr

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The appellant-tenant challenged the judgment and decree dated 09.08.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge, North-East Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby a suit filed by the respondents-landlords was partly decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for recovery of possession of the tenanted property. The respondents had inducted the appellant as a tenant by a rent agreement dated 24.02.2016 for three years at a monthly rent of Rs. 35,000/-, but the appellant defaulted in rent payment from February 2018. The tenancy was terminated by legal notice dated 08.02.2019, and the respondents sought recovery of possession along with arrears of rent and mesne profits.

The respondents filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for a partial decree on the ground that the appellant had made unambiguous admissions in his written statement acknowledging the tenancy relationship, the rent agreement dated 24.02.2016, and the existence of the quit notice. The appellant contended that the quit notice was void as it was issued on the ground of non-payment of electricity dues which had already been paid, and that the tenancy had been extended for a further three years upon payment of additional security of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

The High Court, upon hearing counsel for the appellant and examining the record, declined to even issue notice of appeal, finding no merit in the challenge to the trial court's decree for recovery of possession passed on the basis of the appellant's own admissions in the written statement under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

Catchwords: tenant · landlord · recovery of possession · Order XII Rule 6 CPC · admissions in written statement · rent agreement · termination of tenancy · quit notice · arrears of rent · mesne profits · efflux of time · security deposit · electricity dues · partial decree