M/S Cogent Emr Solutions Ltd v. Virendra Kumar Sharma

Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

¶27Before delving with the contentions of the appellant, it would be appropriate to produce the

relevant provisions and the settled law with regard to relevant provisions.

¶28Oder XII Rule 6 CPC reads as under: "6. 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."

¶29Supreme Court in Uttam Singh Dugal & Co. Ltd. v. Union Bank Of India and ors., AIR 2000 SC 2740 held:- "As to the object of the Order XII Rule 6, we need not say anything more than what

the Legislature itself has said when the said provision came to be amended. In the objects and reasons set out while amending the said rule, it is stated that "where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled." We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed."

¶30Appellant herein, in its written statement, in reply to para Nos. 2 to 4 of plaint on merits, has stated; "2-3. That the contents of paragraph nos. 2-3 are wrong and denied. It is incorrect and denied that the Defendant made defaults in making the payments of the rent as alleged. It is worth to mention here that the Defendant is taking every possible care that the rent is received by

the plaintiff on time and the rent has been paid on time and with utmost diligence and urgency. It is also pertinent to mention here that it is not that the Defendant, who is causing harassment or trouble to the Plaintiff. Needless to mention herewith that the Defendant has deposited 3 months' rent amounting to Rs. 13,35,000/- (11,85,000/- under lease deed dated 26.12.2006 and Rs. 1,50,000/- under lease deed dated 07.06.2007) which itself is a substantial amount and further more originally, the Defendant has let out premises vide lease deed dated

26.12.2006 on monthly rental of Rs. 3,95,000/- and subsequent to that after experiencing of satisfactory conduct of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has entered into further lease deed dated 07.06.2007 for the balance area of the premises on monthly rental of Rs.50,000/-." "4. That the contents of paragraph no.4 are false, misconceived, incorrect and vehemently denied. It is incorrect and denied that the Defendant has not paid rent for three months i.e. of May, June and July, 2008. It is submitted that the Defendant went to pay for the rent to the Plaintiff, but, the Plaintiff refused to accept the same for the reasons best known to him. It is worth to mention here that the Defendant was and is ready and willing to pay the said rent for three months, i.e. for May, June and July, 2008

and hence therefore such delay is not due to the Defendant and there is no violation of the Lease Deeds as alleged……"

¶31The above averments made in the written statement, clearly show that appellant, admits the Landlord and tenant relationship. Execution of registered lease deed dated 7th June, 2007 has not been challenged by the appellant, at any stage of proceedings. Appellant also does not deny that arrears of rent were and are still due.

¶32As regards legal notice dated 8th July, 2008, appellant's written statement is silent on this point. However, the certificate issued by postal authorities, clearly shows that appellant had received the legal notice, yet he failed to comply with it.

¶33Various judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant, are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the present case, relationship of

landlord and tenant between the parties, the rate of rent and arrears of rent due, are admitted.

¶34Only question of dispute is as to whether legal notice had been served or not and whether there has been any violation of the terms of the lease agreement.

¶35As far as service of legal notice is concerned, as already stated above, as per findings of the trial court, there is no specific denial about the service of legal notice dated 8th July, 2008 and as per certificate, issued by postal authorities, notice dated 6th August, 2008 also has been duly served.

¶36As far as violation of terms of lease deed is concerned, there is violation of clause 19 of the lease deed, which read as under; "That if the Lessee does not pay the lease charges for a period of three months, under this agreement, the Lessor will be entitled to terminate this Lease agreement forthwith and Lessor will also be entitled for all rights that he has on the termination of Lease Agreement."

¶37Since, appellant is in arrears of the rent w.e.f. May, 2008 till date, and there has been violation of the terms of the lease, under these circumstances, the respondent is entitled to the relief prayed.

¶38Consequently, I do not find any infirmity or ambiguity in the impugned judgment. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. +CM No.6687/2009

¶39Dismissed.

¶40Copy of this order be sent to trial court.

¶41Trial court record be sent back.

29th May, 2009

V.B.GUPTA, J. rb

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI RFA App. No.168/2009 & CM No.6687/2009 % Judgment reserved on: 22nd May, 2009 Judgment delivered on:29th May, 2009 M/s. Cogent EMR Solutions Ltd. Through its Managing Director Having Registered office at Cogent Matrix E-41/4, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110 020. ….Appellants Through: Mr. Sanjiv Puri, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sonal Sinha and Ms. Divya Jain, Advs. Versus Shri. Virendra Kumar Sharma S/o. PT. Durga Dass R/o. Flat No.4, Meera Bai Polytechnic Campus, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi-110065. ….Respondents. Through: Nemo. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. Present appeal has been filed by appellant against the impugned order dated 15th April, 2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi vide which suit filed by respondent for possession was decreed and it was also held that respondent is entitled to recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- and damages @ Rs.50,000/- p.m. till the possession of the suit is handed over to him. In addition, respondent was also entitled to interest @ 15% per annum, on the said amount, pendentelite and future till realization. 2. The case of respondent is that he has let out a part of premises constructed on Plot No.E-41/4 (Block- E), Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II, New Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant. Appellant made defaults in making payment of the rent as some of the cheques issued were dishonoured. Later on, he paid after repeated requests. Appellant did not make payment for the month of May, June and July, 2008 despite repeated requests and even after service of legal notice dated 8th July, 2008 vide which the tenancy of appellant was terminated and he was directed to hand over the peaceful possession of the suit premises in question as well as payment of the due rent but he failed to do so. 3. Appellant is in unauthorized occupation of the premises in question w.e.f. 1st August, 2008 and as such he is liable to pay damages/mesne profits @ Rs.2 lacs p.m. w.e.f. 1st August, 2008, which is the prevailing rate of rent of such like premises in the area. A legal notice dated 6th August, 2008, to this effect was served upon the appellant but the same was not complied with. 4. In the written statement filed by the appellant, it is stated that appellant is taking every possible care that the rent is received by respondent on time. Respondent was and is ready and willing to pay the said rent for three months i.e. for May, June and July, 2008 and there is no violation of the lease deed. 5. Further, it is stated that appellant, vide letter dated 4th March and 2nd April, 2008, communicated to the respondent about the tariff violation issued by enforcement office of BSES Rajdhani Ltd. of Rs. 7.58 lacs for the period of September, 2006 to March, 2007. The appellant is not liable to pay any such amount, as the said demand does not pertain to the period of the lease of the appellant. The appellant approached this Court seeking quashing of the said demand of BSES. 6. It is denied that appellant is in unauthorized occupation of the premises w.e.f. 1st August, 2008 and as such he is not liable to pay damages/mesne profits. It is further stated that legal notice dated 6th August, 2008 was never received by respondent. Regarding notice dated 8th July, 2008, there is no specific denial. 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that it was the respondent who refused to receive the rent. Appellant did not violate any conditions laid down in the lease deed and as such termination of the lease deed is bad in law. 8. It is also contended that no legal notice has been received by the appellant and it is a matter of evidence as to whether the lease has been terminated in accordance with the provisions of law. It is furth