S. M. ASIF versus VI RENDER KUMAR BAJAJ

S. M. ASIF versus VI RENDER KUMAR BAJAJ

Mere admission of landlord-tenant relationship is not an unequivocal admission sufficient to decree the eviction suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC where substantial defences such as agreement to sell and payments are raised. Opportunity must be afforded to the tenant to contest the suit.

Parties
Appellant Tenant: S. M. Asif; Respondent Landlord: Virender Kumar Bajaj
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Orders and Review Petition; Supreme Court Remitted to Trial Court
Outcome
Appeals allowed; impugned orders set aside; matter remitted for fresh hearing.
Legal Topics
Judgment on Admission, Eviction, Landlord Tenant Relationship, Specific Performance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. M. Asif

Appellant Tenant

Virender Kumar Bajaj

Respondent Landlord

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Orders and Review Petition; Supreme Court Remitted to Trial Court

  1. 1 Whether judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is appropriate when tenant admits landlord-tenant relationship but contests claim based on agreement to sell and alleged payment of advance
  2. 2 Whether trial court should have allowed the tenant to contest the eviction suit

Ratio Decidendi

Mere admission of landlord-tenant relationship is not an unequivocal admission sufficient to decree the eviction suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC where substantial defences such as agreement to sell and payments are raised. Opportunity must be afforded to the tenant to contest the suit.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; impugned orders set aside; matter remitted for fresh hearing.

Orders

  • Appellant to pay arrears of rent at Rs.44,000/- per month within eight weeks.
  • Appellant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- per month as compensation for use and occupation from 01.08.2015.