Moti S. Masand v. M/s DELL International Services India Pvt. Ltd & Anr.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.M. Punchhi, Advocate and Mr. Anupam Bansal, Advocate for the respondent No.1. A.N. Jindal, J Having failed to sustain his plea before the trial court for getting the decree while seeking protection of Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 of CPC, the plaintiff-petitioner has preferred this revision petition. The case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that he had purchased the suit property from defendant No.2 i.e. M/s Vipul Ltd. and Classic Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. vide buyers agreement dated 22.3.2007 as he had earlier executed an agreement of lease in favour of defendant No.1 vide registered lease deed No.10266. It has further been averred that an addendum was also signed between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 whereby the plaintiff had authorised the defendant No.2 to lease out the suit premises to the defendant No.1.

In addition to the documents, a deed of adherence was also executed between the plaintiff and defendants No.2 and defendant No.1 attorned the lease which had commenced on 12.3.2007, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to monthly rent of suit premises which is Rs.38,772.50. It was further submitted that since the defendant No.2 had been paying rent received from defendant No.1 to the plaintiff till October, 2008, but thereafter no payment has been made and deed of adherence was also also executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 vide which the defendant No.1 had agreed to make payment of rent to the plaintiff. Since Civil Revision No. 6994 of 2010 -2- *** no payment of rent was made to him after October, 2008, the present suit for ejectment, on account of non payment of rent, has been filed. In the written statement, the defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiff has no legal right in the suit property, merely on the basis of the buyers agreement dated 22.3.2007, it does not confer any right.

The agreement, unless registered, cannot be treated as document of title. The execution of the addendum and deed of adherence between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 has been denied for want of knowledge. The execution of the addendum and deed of adherence between the defendant No.2 were denied but execution of the deed of adherence dated 26.3.2009 between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 were admitted but it was explained that the execution of the deed of adherence does not create any substantive right in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. In another reply filed by the defendant No.2, it admitted that the suit plot was allotted in favour of the plaintiff and rent up to October, 2008 was given to him by the defendant No.2, after receiving the same from the defendant No.1. Further case set up by the defendant No.2 is that the plaintiff was director of the defendant No.2 company and he obtained loan of Rs.17 lacs from the company on various occasions but did not make payment of loan, thus, a sum of Rs.23,48,658/- along with interest were payable by the plaintiff to the company, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to receive any rent till the time he makes payment of the said amount.

In other words, defendant No.2 set up a claim against the plaintiff in the above said buds. On the application filed by the plaintiff that since the defendant No.1 as well as defendant No.2 admit the deed of adherence, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff should have been decreed. But the trial court while holding that since the parties are at issues and some admissions with regard to deed of adherence, which are accompanied by the explanations are not sufficient to pass a decree, therefore, dismissed the application. Civil Revision No. 6994 of 2010 -3- *** The order passed by the trial court appears to be quite elaborate suggesting no further discussion on the issue. It is well settled by now that the mere agreement does not confer any title. The facts which need to be proved by way of evidence should be proved in that manner. The Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC has to be read in conjunction with Order 8 Rule 5 CPC and if these two rules are read together, it has to be observed that it is the complete discretion of the court to pass a decree and the court can proceed to ask for evidence to be led by the parties over the issues raised by them.

It is also very much clear that the admission to treat as conclusive must be clear, categorical, unconditional and unambiguous so as to admit the claim of the plaintiff. The vague admissions which are accompanied by the explanations invite evidence. In the present case, plaintiff is claiming ejectment of the defendant No.1 on the basis of non payment of rent which he has been allegedly receiving through defendant No.2. The defendant No.1 has denied the ownership of the plaintiff through the alleged buyer's agreement stating that such agreement does not confer any title. He has also denied deed of adherence between the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2, rather he has explained that the unregistered agreement does not confer any title upon the plaintiff. Though defendant No.1 has stated about the payment of some rent to the defendant No.2, but has not stated that he had paid it for the plaintiff. Further the defendant No.2 has also challenged the right of the plaintiff to claim the said rent from him, therefore, as the parties are at issues, suit cannot be decreed at the very threshold without calling for further evidence. No merits. Dismissed. December 19, 2012 deepak (A.N. Jindal) Judge