Fact
This case involves a property dispute between Ms Indoj Consultant Private Limited, the owner of a property located at B-26, Block-B, Preet Vihar, Delhi, and Shri Govind Mishra, who was residing as a tenant on the second floor of this property. The initial lease deed was signed on 13 March 2019, allowing possession from 20 February 2019 until 19 January 2020, and required Mr. Mishra to pay a rent of Rs. 20,000 per month.
After the lease expired by efflux of time and Mr. Mishra did not vacate, the property owner filed a suit on 6 October 2022, seeking ejectment (eviction), recovery of rent arrears, and a permanent injunction. The tenant, Mr. Mishra, continued to stay and paid rent but also brought up issues related to maintenance and who his real landlord was, stating he had other lease agreements with one Mrs. S.D. Malik after the first lease expired. The matter was complicated by the existence of two additional lease deeds and an undertaking, all cited in court.Indoj-Consultant-P-Ltd.-v.-Govind-Mishra.pdf
Procedural Detail
The main suit was filed by the petitioner company for eviction and other reliefs. Mr. Mishra entered his appearance and filed a written statement. The petitioner subsequently filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arguing that the tenant’s admissions in his written statement and an undertaking were sufficient for the court to grant relief without a full trial.
Order XII Rule 6 allows the court to issue a judgment based on admissions made by a party. The application, however, was dismissed by the Additional District Judge (East) at Karkardooma Court, Delhi, on 7 October 2023. This led the petitioner to file a revision petition under Section 115 CPC before the Delhi High Court, challenging that order.
Dispute
The primary dispute revolved around whether there was a clear landlord-tenant relationship between the company (petitioner) and Mr. Mishra, and whether Mr. Mishra's statements and documents constituted admissions under Order XII Rule 6.
The petitioner argued:
-
Its ownership and entitlement to seek eviction were proven through documents and official records.
-
The tenant had acknowledged the tenancy and the specific rent amount in various pleadings and an undertaking.
The respondent (tenant) argued:
-
He never admitted to a landlord-tenant relationship with the petitioner company, only with Mrs. S.D. Malik.
-
The admissions required under Order XII Rule 6 were absent as there was ongoing dispute over the landlord’s identity and the validity of lease agreements.
-
The matter required a trial to resolve the issues of maintenance, utility bills, and the actual landlord.
Detailed Reasoning including Judgment
The Hon’ble High Court thoroughly examined the facts, written statements, and statutory provisions. The court clarified that for a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC in an eviction matter, three ingredients are essential:
-
The existence of an admitted landlord-tenant relationship.
-
The tenancy is not protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act, and exceeds Rs. 3,500 monthly rent.
-
The lease has expired or tenancy has otherwise ended, and the tenant has not vacated.
Order XII Rule 6 itself confirms the court's power to decide based on clear admissions, be it in pleadings or otherwise.
Reviewing the pleadings, the court noted:
-
Mr. Mishra repeatedly admitted to being a tenant and paying rent, never claimed ownership, and did not dispute the expiry of all lease deeds after June 2022.
-
There was admission—direct or by conduct—of the petitioner’s role as landlord, reinforced by records from the Registrar of Companies and witnessed lease documents.
-
Sale deed records and involvement of family members (with Mrs. S.D. Malik as a director and company signatory) made it clear that technical disputes about the precise landlord were more form than substance.
-
The "defence" raised, i.e., the dispute about the true landlord and maintenance issues, was found by the court to be lacking in substance: even if a trial was held, these issues would not affect the legal obligation to vacate after tenancy expiration.
Key previous judgments were cited, including:
-
Payal Vision Ltd. v. Radhika Choudhary (2012) 11 SCC 405: Court may issue a decree on clear admissions of landlord-tenant relationship and expiry of lease.
-
Usha Rani Jain v. Nirulas Corner House Pvt. Ltd.: Order XII Rule 6 aims at speedy justice on admitted facts—sham or manufactured disputes do not prevent such a decree.
-
Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar HUF v. Ashwin Bhanulal Desai (2024) 8 SCC 668: Once a lease expires, any continued possession makes the occupant a tenant at sufferance—liable to vacate or pay mesne profits.
The court stressed that in this case, all key facts were either admitted or undisputed: the tenant's ongoing possession was unauthorized post-expiry, and the technical defence was an afterthought or a method to delay eviction. The court held that the trial court’s refusal to grant relief under Order XII Rule 6 was incorrect as none of the issues raised by the tenant warranted a postponement of decision or a full trial.
Citations referred and discussed:
-
Order XII Rule 6, CPC.
-
Payal Vision Ltd. v. Radhika Choudhary (2012) 11 SCC 405.
-
Usha Rani Jain Ors. v. Nirulas Corner House Pvt. Ltd Ors. 2005 SCC OnLine Del 843.
-
Bijay Kumar Manish Kumar HUF v. Ashwin Bhanulal Desai 2024 8 SCC 668.
-
Rahimal Bathu v. Ashiyal Beevi 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1226.
-
Deepak Jain v. Kamal Garg 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5624.
-
Sanuj Bathla v. Manu Maheshwari CRP 166/2018, DHC, 12.04.2021.
-
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 111 (on determination of leases).
Decision
The Delhi High Court set aside the trial court's order, allowed the revision petition, and directed that the petitioner is immediately entitled to possession of the subject premises without the need for a further trial regarding eviction. The remaining issues of accounting—arrears of rent and mesne profits—were to continue before the trial court.
The respondent tenant was directed to continue depositing user charges until he hands over physical possession. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw amounts deposited as per earlier directions. Ultimately, the judgment provided a clear affirmation that admitted facts (such as the relationship and expiry of tenancy) must not be clouded by technical, sham, or manufactured disputes to delay justice.
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Suggestions for Suitable Article Titles:
-
Eviction by Admission: Legal Analysis of Indoj Consultant Pvt. Ltd. v. Govind Mishra
-
Speedy Justice in Tenancy Disputes: Lessons from a Delhi High Court Judgment
-
Order XII Rule 6 CPC and Admissions in Civil Eviction Cases
-
Distinguishing Substance from Sham: Delhi HC on Landlord-Tenant Law
-
The Role of Admissions in Ejectment Suits: A Case Study from Delhi High Court
