Trial Ordered to Address Disputed Claims in Lease Agreement Between Virender Kaushik and Satish Jindal
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has set aside a previous judgment by the Rohini District Judge, which decreed in favor of the plaintiff, Satish Jindal, on the basis of alleged admissions by the defendant, Virender Kaushik, regarding outstanding rent payments. The High Court emphasized the necessity for a trial to adjudicate the contested issues pertaining to the lease of a commercial property in Pitampura, New Delhi.
The case revolves around a registered lease agreement dated May 16, 2014, for a five-year period concerning a shop at Apra Plaza, Pitampura. The lease stipulated a graduated rent schedule, but disputes arose over rent payments post the lease's expiration in May 2019. Jindal claimed arrears amounting to Rs.24,30,000 for the period from May 2019 to February 2021, asserting that Kaushik continued to occupy the property without authorization, thereby accruing daily damages.
Initially, the District Judge decreed the recovery suit based on Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, citing admissions in Kaushik's written statement. However, Kaushik contested this, leading to an appeal in the High Court. The High Court, presided over by Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan, found that the defendant's written statement, despite reproducing the plaintiff's claims, was accompanied by denials and assertions of regular rent payments, thereby failing to constitute clear admissions.
The court highlighted the importance of unequivocal admissions for judgments under Order XII Rule 6, noting the presence of triable issues that necessitate evidence appreciation. Consequently, the High Court directed the District Judge to conduct a full trial, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the facts and evidence presented by both parties.
The decision underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring fair adjudication, especially in complex civil disputes involving substantial financial claims. The court has scheduled further proceedings for April 8, 2026, urging expeditious handling of the matter.
Bottom Line:
Order XII Rule 6 of CPC - Judgment on admission - Defendant's written statement containing reproduction of plaintiff's averments but accompanied by denial cannot be deemed as clear or unequivocal admission of liability - Trial warranted for adjudication of triable issues.
Statutory provision(s): Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Shri Virender Kaushik v. Satish Jindal, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2871048
