KARAN KAPOOR vs. MADHURI KUMAR

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4645 OF 2022 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.13800 OF 2021) Karan Kapoor                                         …Appellant Versus Madhuri Kumar                      ...Respondent J U D G M E N T J.K. Maheshwari, J. Leave granted. 2. This   appeal   arises   out   of   the   Judgment   dated 08.04.2021, passed by the High Court of Delhi in Regular First   Appeal   No.218   of   2021   (hereinafter   referred   as   ‘RFA No.218 of 2021’) preferred by the Appellant, whereby the said RFA was dismissed and the High Court thereby upheld the Signature Not Verified Order dated 01.12.2020 passed in Civil Suit No.867 of 2018 Digitally signed by Rachna Date: 2022.07.26 17:04:43 IST Reason: and Review Order dated 17.02.2021 in Civil Suit No.867 of 1 2018   passed   by   ADJ­O7,   Saket   Court,   (South   East),   New Delhi. 3. The brief facts of the matter are that Appellant was a tenant   in   the   Residential   Property   owned   by   Respondent bearing   No.   B­228,   Ground   Floor,   Greater   Kailash­1,   New Delhi­110048, including the built­up area in the stilt portion of the building (hereinafter referred as the ‘Suit Property’), which comprises of drawing room, dining room, a foyer, four bedrooms with attached bathrooms, kitchen, lounge, service area   and   a   servant   quarter   with   common   bathroom   and parking for two cars. The Respondent­Landlord entered into a Lease   Agreement   dated   07.08.2011   with   proprietorship concern   of   the   Appellant,   namely   M/s.   Fantasy   Lights,   at monthly   rent   of   Rs.1,17,000/­   for   a   period   of   24   months starting   from   07.08.2011   till   07.08.2013   and   interest   free security deposit of Rs.3,51,000/­ (Three Lakhs Fifty – One Thousand Only) was paid by the Appellant at the time of the execution   of   the   Lease   Agreement.   After   the   expiry   of   the Lease   Agreement,   an   extended   Lease   Agreement   for subsequent term of 11 months was executed on 07.08.2013 2 at the rate of Rent of Rs.1,50,000/­ per month which was to expire on 06.07.2014. The Security Deposit paid earlier was retained   as   Interest   Free   Security   Deposit   towards   Lease Agreement dated 07.08.2013 as well. 4. The Appellant tenant did not pay any rent after the expiry  of  the  extended  Lease  Agreement  dated  06.07.2014 with effect from 07.07.2014 and continued in occupation of the   Suit   Property.   A   Legal   Notice   dated   12.04.2018   was served by the Respondent landlord upon the Appellant calling him to vacate the Suit Property. However, even thereafter, neither the Suit Property was vacated, nor the rent was paid which led the Respondent/Plaintiff to file Civil Suit No.867 of 2018 for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, mesne profit, Pendent   Lite,   and   interest   before   ADJ­O7,   Saket   Court, (South   East),   New   Delhi.   The   Appellant/Defendant   filed   a Written   Statement   contending   that   after   the   expiry   of   the Lease Agreement dated 07.08.2013, the Respondent/Plaintiff had approached to him and made the offer to sell the right, title and interest in the Suit Property, in furtherance of which Agreement to Sell dated 22.04.2017 (herein after referred as 3 ‘ATS­I’)   was   executed   between   the   parties   for   a   sum   of Rs.3,60,00,000/­ (Three Crores and Sixty Lakhs Only) and it was allegedly agreed that the rent accrued for the year 2014­ 2017 be adjusted into the said Agreement to Sell. Appellant also contended that in addition to the execution of ATS­I, he also agreed to transfer its right, title and interest of a plot of land   situated   at   Amloh   in   favor   of   Respondent   for   a consideration   of   Rs.15   Lakhs   through   Agreement   to   Sell (‘ATS­II’) which would partially satisfy the obligations of sale consideration of ATS­I. Further, it was averred in the Written Statement   that   certain   adjustments   were   made   to   the consideration payable for the subject property consequent to a new Agreement to Sell (‘ATS­III’) was executed. 5. In view of the averments made in Written Statement filed by the Appellant/Defendant in Civil Suit No.867 of 2018, the Respondent/Plaintiff filed an Application under Order XII Rule 6 and another application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) with a prayer to pass   a   judgment   on   admission   of   facts   made   in   Written Statement and to draw a decree accordingly. 4 6. The contention of the Respondent/Plaintiff before the Trial Court was that looking to the admissions made with respect to the Landlord­Tenant relationship, rate of rent and the   defense   taken   by   the   Appellant/Defendant   in   Written Statement   is   sham,   as   no   consideration   was   exchanged. While on the other side, the Appellant/Defendant contended that   the   Respondent/Plaintiff   has   concealed   the   material facts regarding existence of ATS­I, II and III, though the two Lease   Agreement   dated   07.08.2011   and   dated   07.08.2013 were not denied. It was said only on the expiry of the term of the   extended   Lease   Agreement,   the   Respondent/Plaintiff approached the Appellant/Defendant and offered to sell the Suit Property. Further it was contended that, no demand to the accrued rent was made as it was agreed between the parties that the amount of rent shall be adjusted in ATS. In furtherance of which ATS­I dated 22.04.2017 was executed by the Respondent/Plaintiff in favor of Appellant/Defendant with respect to Suit Property where Appellant agreed to pay Rs.3,60,00,000/­ as consideration. It was also contended by the Appellant/Defendant before the Trial Court that earlier 5 Rs.4.7 Cr. was agreed towards consideration, however, after the payment of enormous earnest money to the Respondent before signing ATS­I, the consideration was reduced to Rs.3.6 Cr.   Subsequently,   Second   Agreement   to   Sell   dated 22.05.2017 was signed to transfer Appellant’s rights, title and interest in the property situated in Amloh to representatives of Respondent for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/­ (Fifteen Lakhs Only) which was to be adjusted towards the consideration of Rs.3.6   Cr.   payable   to   the   Respondent.   Further,   Third Agreement to Sell dated 30.12.2017 was executed between the   parties   consequent   to   the   aforesaid   adjustments.   The Appellant/Defendant also argued before the Trial Court to have approached the Allahabad Bank for loan amounting to Rs.1.7   Cr.   to   purchase   the   Suit   Property,   but   the Respondent/Plaintiff   refused   to   execute   the   subject   Sale Deed. Lastly, it was  submitted that there is no clear and categorical   admission   from   his   side   and   the   Written Statement filed by him and the suit has to be read as a whole and   not   in   isolation.   Moreover,   the   present   Suit   involves adjudication of facts and serious questions of law which is 6 possible only after leading oral evidence and on appreciating it, therefore, no decree under Order XII Rule 6 can be passed on the pleadings of the parties.  7. The Trial Court perused the material on record and in Para 17 of the order dated 01.12.2020 recorded that there are certain undisputed facts. Those are: (a) The Plaintiff being absolute owner of the suit property is not disputed; (b) The identity of the suit property is not disputed; (c) Execution of the Lease Agreement dated 07.08.2011 between the Plaintiff and M/s Fantasy Lights @ Rs.1,17,000/­ per month for the period of two years is not disputed; (d) Interests free security deposit of Rs.3,50,000/­ paid by the Defendant to Plaintiff is not   disputed;   (e)  The   execution   of   Lease   Agreement   dated 07.08.2013   between   the   Plaintiff   and   Defendant   for   11 months @ Rs.1,50,000/­ per month is also not disputed; (f) It is not disputed that no rent has been paid since July 2014 though   certain   defenses   have   been   taken   with   respect   to payment of the said rent; (g) The issuance and receipt of the legal notice dated 12.04.2018 calling upon the Defendant to hand over the possession is also not disputed.  7 8. Apart from dealing with the aforementioned admissions, the Trial Court also dealt with each defense taken by the Appellant   in   the   written   statement   and   observed:   (i) Appellant /Respondent  did  not mention  any  amount which has been paid by him as  ‘Bayana’  in lieu of the ATS­I dated 22.04.2017. It is beyond the comprehension of the Court as to   what   stopped   the   A ppellant   from   mentioning   the   exact figures of the amount paid by the A ppellant  as  ‘Bayana’ ; (ii) No   document   was   placed   before   the   Court   by A ppellant /Defendant to show the quantum of amount paid as consideration thus ATS­I executed without any consideration has  no   significance;   (iii)   ATS­II   with   respect  to   the   Amloh Property has also been filed and the same cannot be relied upon   for   the   aforesaid   reasons;   (iv)   None   of   the   original Agreements   to   Sell   have   been   filed;   (v)   It   is   a   settled proposition of law that even if the consideration has been exchanged the purchaser does not become the owner of the property till the time the registered Sale Deed is executed in his favor and the Tenant­Landlord relationship cannot come to an end on the execution of the Agreement to Sell.  8 9. The   Trial   Court   relying   upon   the   admissions   as aforementioned, passed the judgment and decree allowing the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC for delivery of possession with respect to the Suit Property in favor of the Respondent/Plaintiff. Aggrieved Appellant/Defendant sought review of the Order dated 01.12.2020 wherein the Trial Court was   pleased   to   dismiss   the   same   vide   order   dated 17.02.2021. 10. The Appellant preferred Regular First Appeal No.218 of 2021 before the  High Court of Delhi challenging both the orders i.e. order dated 01.12.2020 passed by Trial Court and review   order   dated   17.02.2021.   It   was   the   case   of   the Appellant   before   the   High   Court   that   a   Suit   for   specific performance in relation to aforementioned three Agreements to Sell is pending, in which the High Court has issued notice, but nowhere the Trial Court has considered the same in the impugned judgment. Further, Appellant also contended that no categoric admission was made in the Written Statement to pass   judgment   granting   decree   of   possession   to   the Respondent in exercise of discretion under Order XII Rule 6 9 of   CPC.   Lastly,   it   was   argued   that   the   Sale   Deed   is   not required   to   be   registered   in   view   of   Section   17(2)   of   the Registration Act.  11. The High Court vide impugned order dated 08.04.2021 rejected the Appeal with observations that the Trial Court in its order dated 17.02.2021 has noted that there has been clear   admission   with   regard   to   relationship   of   Landlord­ Tenant   and   the   rent   paid   by   the   Appellant.   Further,   the Appellate   Court   upheld   the   Trial   Court’s   findings   qua admission of the facts. The High Court also noted that the findings qua admissions is not challenged by the Appellant which is sufficient to grant the decree for possession of suit property. Further, High Court observed that it is settled in law   that   the   suit   for   specific   performance   filed   by   the Appellant is of no impediment for the Trial Court to proceed with or decide the Suit for possession based on Landlord­ Tenant relationship. Lastly, an ATS of immovable property where   the   possession   of   premises   is   delivered   in   part performance   can   only   be   possible   by   registered   document after   paying   the   requisite   stamp   duty.   The   High   Court 10 dismissed   the   Regular   First   Appeal   with   the   said observations, which is challenged by the Appellant by filing instant appeal. 12. Appellant has argued before this Court that he is well within his rights to defend his possession in the suit property having satisfied the conditions enunciated by this Court in Shrimant   Rao   Suryavanshi   v.   Prahlad   Bhairoba Suryavanshi   ­ 2002 (3) SCC 676 . As there is an ATS for transfer   of   rights   in   the   suit   property   in   favor   of   the Appellant, which has not been disputed to have been signed by Respondent. The covenants therefore expressly construes the intention of parties towards the sale and purchase of the suit property. It is further argued by the Appellant that the issues put before the Trial Court were triable issues and in such a scenario the Trial Court should not dismiss the suit  in limine  and pass a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC when only   the   truth   can   be   revealed   by   a   full­fledged   trial. Appellant also argues that when Seller­Landlord accepted the earnest money she actually acted under the agreement. This 11 acceptance provided  by the  ATS  ended the  relationship  of lessor and lessee and the tenancy ceases. 13. Appellant   has   placed   reliance   on   Hari   Steel   and General Industries Limited and Another v. Daljit Singh and Others – (2019) 20 SCC 425   and  Himani Alloys Ltd.   to v.   Tata   Steel   Ltd   reported   in   ­   2011   (15)   SCC   273 contend   that   the   Trial   Court   should   have   refrained   from exercising   its   jurisdiction   by   decreeing   the   suit   of Respondent/Plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 keeping in mind that the judgment on admission is judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the Appellant on merit. Further, by referring to the case of    R. Kanthimathi v. Beatrice   Xavier   reported   in   ­   2000   (9)   SCC   339   the Appellant argued that by accepting the earnest money, the Landlord­Seller has actually acted under the agreement and thus the relationship of landlord and tenant has ceased to exist. 14. Per Contra, on behalf of Respondent, it has been argued that the Appellant came in the possession of suit premises by virtue   of  lease  deed  dated  07.08.2011   and   extended  lease 12 deed dated 07.08.2013 and is continuing to be in possession without payment of rent from 2014 onwards, which makes out a classic case of abuse of due process of law. It was urged that Appellant has not put in possession in furtherance to the ATS, however without proving the contents of ATS his status would   not   change.   It   was   further   argued   that   once   it   is admitted   that   there   is   undisputed   Landlord­Tenant relationship   between   parties;   a   termination   notice   under Section 106 has been issued prior to filing the suit followed by receipt of the rent. Thus, the Respondent have a   prima facie   case to decree the suit on admission under Order XII Rule 6. Further, it has been argued that the defense under Section 53­A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 can only be applicable when consideration has been exchanged which is not the case of the Appellant. Furthermore, learned senior counsel placing reliance on   Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalptram Iccharam ­ 1974 (1) SCC 242  argued that the admissions in pleadings or in proceedings of Court at the time of hearing of the   case   stand   on   higher   footing   and   are   admissible   in evidence as per Section 58 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Thus, 13 in light of the facts as discussed, the Respondent has a good case for a judgment on admission and the courts below have not committed any error while passing the judgment.

14 admitted in the pleading of that party or in his reply to the notice to admit documents, shall be deemed to be admitted except as against a person under a disability: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion and for reasons to be recorded, require any document so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. (2) Where a party unreasonably neglects or refuses to admit a document after the service on him of the notice to admit documents, the Court may direct him to pay costs to the other party by way of compensation.] 3. Form of notice.—A notice to admit documents shall be in Form No. 9 in Appendix C, with such variations as circumstances may require. [3A. Power of Court to record admission.—Notwithstanding that no notice to admit documents has been given under rule 2, the Court may, at any stage of the proceeding before it, of its own motion, call upon any party to admit any document and shall, in such a case, record whether the party admits or refuses or neglects to admit such document.] 4. Notice to admit acts.—Any party may, by notice in writing, at any time not later than nine days before the day fixed for the hearing, call on any other party to admit, for the purposes of the suit only, any specific fact or facts, mentioned in such notice. And in case of refusal or neglect to admit the same within six days after service of such notice, or within such further time as may be allowed by the Court, the costs of proving such fact or facts shall be paid by the party so neglecting or refusing, whatever the result of the suit may be, unless the Court otherwise directs: Provided that any admission made in pursuance of such notice is to be deemed to be made only for the purposes of the particular suit, and not as an admission to be used against the party on any other occasion or in favour of any person other than the party giving the notice. 15

16 The   said   notice   is   required   to   be   given   in   Form   No.9   of Appendix ‘C’ of CPC. Rule 3A confers overriding powers to the Court, that even in absence of a notice to admit a document under Rule 2, the Court may record such admission on its own motion or by calling upon a party. The Court also have a power   to   record   whether   the   party   admits   or   refuses   or neglect to admit such document. Rule 4 of Order XII relates to notice to admit the facts. Any party may by a notice in writing at any time not later than 9 days before the day fixed for the hearing, call upon any other party to admit for the purposes of suit only, any specific fact or facts, mentioned in such notice that is required to be answered within a specified time or within such further time as directed by the Court in case   of   refusal  or   neglect   to   admit   the   same,   the   cost  of proving such fact or facts be paid by the parties as directed. By adding a proviso, it was made clear that the admission, if any, made in a proceeding would be relating to the same proceeding not for any other proceedings. The notice under Rule 4 is required to be given in Form No.10 of Appendix ‘C’ of CPC as prescribed in Rule 5. Rule 6 confers discretionary 17 power to a Court who ‘may’ at any stage of the suit or suits on the application of any party or in its own motion and without   waiting   for   determination   of   any   other   question between the parties makes such order or gives such judgment as it may think fit having regard to such admission.  16. Thus, legislative intent is clear by using the word ‘may’ and ‘as it may think fit’ to the nature of admission. The said power is discretionary which should be only exercised when specific,   clear   and   categorical   admission   of   facts   and documents are on record, otherwise the Court can refuse to invoke the power of Order XII Rule 6. The said provision has been brought with intent that if admission of facts raised by one side is admitted by other, and the Court is satisfied to the nature of admission, then the parties are not compelled for full­fledged trial and the judgment and order can be directed without taking any evidence. Therefore, to save the time and money of the Court and respective parties, the said provision has been brought in the statute. As per above discussion, it is clear  that  to  pass  a judgment on admission,  the Court  if thinks fit may pass an order at any stage of the suit. In case 18 the judgment is pronounced by the Court a decree be drawn accordingly and parties to the case is not required to go for trial.  17. Some special provisions have been made in Rules 7, 8 and   9   regarding   affidavit   of   signature,   notice   to   produce documents and also to the cost which may not have much relevance to the facts of the present case hence, not being discussed elaborately in this judgment.  18. On the issue of discretion of Court to pass judgment on admission, a three­Judge Bench of this Court in the case of S.M. Asif v. Virendar Kumar Bajaj – (2015) 9 SCC 287 made the legislative intent clear to use the word ‘may’ which clearly stipulates that the power under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In the said case, the suit for eviction was filed by the Respondent­Landlord   against   the   Appellant­Tenant.   The relationship of tenancy was admitted including the period of Lease Agreement. The Plaintiffs’ claim was resisted by the Defendant setting up a plea that the property in question was agreed to be sold by an agreement and the advance of Rs. 19 82,50,000/­ was paid. The Defendant in course of taking the defense   stoutly   denied   that   Respondent/Plaintiff   has continued to be the landlord after entering into Agreement to Sell. The suit for specific performance was also filed which of course was contested by the Plaintiff. In the said case, this Court  was   of   the   view  that   deciding   such  issues   requires appreciation of evidence. Mere relationship of landlord and tenant  cannot be  said  to  be  an  unequivocal admission to decree the suit under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. Resultantly, this Court by setting aside the judgment passed by the High Court remitted the matter back to the Trial Court subject to deposit of the arrears of the rent and the compensation for use of  occupation of the suit premises. Such deposit was subject to final outcome of the eviction as well as suit for specific performance.  19. In the context of the said legal position, reverting to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the first Lease Agreement was executed on 07.08.2011 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,17,000/­ of a suit premises. The said Lease Agreement was for a period of 02 years ending in July 2013. By the 20 consent   of   the   parties   extended   Lease   Agreement   dated 07.08.2013 was executed for a further period of 11 months for   a   monthly   rent   of   Rs.1,50,000/­   with   approximate increase   in   rent   amount   by   30%   for   the   next   one   year. Admittedly, the notice for eviction was issued terminating the lease due to non­payment of the rent after the expiry of the extended   lease   period   which   is   due   for   payment   by   the Defendant. The suit for eviction was filed on 18.05.2018 for possession (based on Landlord­Tenant relationship), arrears of rent,   mesne profit   and   pendente lite . The said suit was contested by the Defendant in which the ownership was not denied.   The   execution   of   first   Lease   Agreement   dated 07.08.2011   and   the   extended   Lease   Agreement   dated 07.08.2013 was also not denied. The monthly tenancy and payment   of   rent   in   terms   of   Lease   Agreement   is   also   not denied by the Defendant. The Defendant has taken a defense that the property belonging to him in  Amloh  was agreed to be sold to the Plaintiff to which effect ATS­II dated 25.05.2017 was executed.  Further   the   Defendant  has  contended   that, ATS­III   dated   30.12.2017   was   executed   after   some 21 adjustments   in   consideration   was   made.   Hence,   the Defendant argued that on account of execution of the three Agreements to Sell with respect to the suit property for a sum of   Rs.   3,60,00,000/­,   the   relationship   of   Landlord­Tenant ceased to exist and the Defendant acquired the status of the owner as he has already parted with the possession of the property under the Lease Agreement. 20. Learned   counsel   for   the   Appellant   has   placed   heavy reliance on a judgment of   R. Kanthimathi (supra) . In the said case, this Court has specified that any jural relationship between two persons could be created through an agreement and similarly could be changed through an agreement subject to the limitations under the law. However, it is urged that the relationship   of   the   Appellant   has   now   been   changed   to purchaser on signing the ATS­I by landlord subsequent to lease agreement, therefore the relationship of landlord and tenant extinguishes. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of  Himani Alloys Limited (supra)  and it has been urged by Appellant that in case the admission is not of the amount as alleged and not categoric and clear, the decree 22 under Order XII Rule 6 cannot be directed. The case of  Hari  has also been relied upon to contend that the Steel (supra) relief under Order XII Rule 6 is discretionary and the Court should   not   deny   the   valuable   right   of   the   Defendant   to contest the suit, meaning thereby, the discretion should be used only when there is a clear, categorical and unconditional admission and such right should not be exercised to deny valuable right of a Defendant to contest the claim based on defense   taken.   Further,   relying   upon   the   judgment   of Shrimant   Shanrao   Suryavanshi   (supra) ,   it   has   been contended that when a possession is with the Appellant by virtue   of   a   part   performance   of   agreement   to   sell   as prescribed under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, he has right to defend or protect his possession.  21. On the other hand, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel,   placed   reliance   on   the   judgment   of   Nagindas Ramdas (supra) ,  inter alia , contending that the admissions if true and clear are the best proof of the fact admitted, it is also   stated   the   admissions   in   the   pleadings   or   judicial admissions admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, 23 1872, made by the parties or their agents at or before hearing of   the   case   stands   on   higher   footings   than   evidentiary admissions. It is binding and constitute the waiver of proof. Learned senior counsel further submits that the judgment of is distinguishable with the present R. Kanthimathi (supra)   case.   In   the   said   case,   after   referring   the   terms   of   the agreement   it   reflected   that   the   major   amount   of   sale consideration was paid and only Rs.5,000/­ was remaining to be paid. Also, by conveyance the possession of property was surrendered, therefore, Court said that the jural relationship between   the   persons   were   changed   by   way   of   subsequent agreement subject to the limitations under the law. While in the   present   case   ATS­I   was   executed   on   22.04.2017.   In clause 2 of the said agreement, it was specifically mentioned “ however, no advance – earnest money has been paid to the first party ”. With respect to possession, it was mentioned that it shall be handed over on spot. Thus, out of the total sale consideration of Rs.3,60,00,000/­ nothing was paid and the Appellant was in possession under the Lease Agreement as tenant. The document Annexure P­1 (Advance Receipt­cum 24 Agreement   to   Sale   &   Purchase)   produced   alongwith   the paperbook   of   appeal   is   a   document   which   has   not   been produced   before   the   lower   Court.   Thus,   vide   order   dated 07.10.2021, it was made clear by this Court that the said document be deleted from the paperbook of this case. In view of the said distinction drawn it was urged that judgment of  R.  is of no help to the Appellant. Kanthimathi (supra) 22. Be that as it may, the arguments advanced by both the sides, in our view can be appreciated by the Trial Court by affording opportunity to them to lead evidence. As per the pleadings, there may be admission to the extent of execution of the Lease Agreement, rate of rent and monthly payment but simultaneously the defense taken by the Defendant is also based on ATS­I, II and III. In view of the contents of those agreements and terms specified therein, the defense as taken by the Appellant/Defendant is plausible or not is a matter of trial which may be appreciated by the Court after granting opportunity to lead evidence by the respective parties. There may   be   admission   with   respect   to   tenancy   as   per   lease agreements but the defense as taken is also required to be 25 looked   into   by   the   Court   and   there   is   need   to   decide justiciability of defense by the full­fledged trial. In our view, for the purpose of Order XII Rule 6, the said admission is not clear and categorical, so as to exercise a discretion by the Court   without   dealing   with   the   defense   as   taken   by Defendant. As we are conscious that any observation made by this Court may affect the merit of either side, therefore, we are not recording any finding either on the issue of tenancy or with respect to the defense as taken by the Defendant. We are only inclined to say whether the judgment and decree passed in exercise of the power under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is based on clear and categorical admission. In our view, the facts of  the case in hand and  the  judgment  in   S.M. Asif  are altogether similar, therefore, the ratio of the said (supra) judgment rightly applies to the present case. Consequently, the   judgment   and   decree   passed   by   the   Trial   Court,   as confirmed   by   the   High   Court,   only   on   admission   of   fact without considering the defense in exercise of power under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is hereby set­aside. The matter is remitted   back   to   the   Trial   Court   to   decide   the   suit   as 26 expeditiously   as   possible   affording   due   opportunity   to   the parties to record evidence that shall be appreciated by the Court on merit.  23. In the present case, the tenant has not paid any amount of rent w.e.f. 07.07.2014. In a suit based on Landlord­Tenant relationship, the amount of rent and arrears thereof ought to be paid in terms of the order of the Court. The said view is fortified by the judgment of   S.M. Asif (supra) . As the Lease Agreement   dated   07.08.2011   and   the   extended   Lease Agreement dated 07.08.2013, which are not in dispute and by the extended Lease Agreement, which was for one year, the rent was increased for the year 2013­2014 by 30%. The Defendant has not paid any rent till date though the period of more than 7 years has already passed. Therefore, we direct that   in   terms   of   the   admitted   fact   by   extended   Lease Agreement and the increase in the percentage of rent, the Trial Court shall first decide the issue of payment of monthly rent applying the said increase on year to year basis and pass appropriate orders for payment of arrears as well as deposit of regular monthly rent. The said payment may be subject to 27 outcome of the decision of the present suit as well as the suit for   specific   performance   of   the   agreement   filed   by   the Appellant. 24. Resultantly,   this   appeal   is   allowed   to   the   extent indicated hereinabove and the order of High Court and Trial Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court.       ………..………………...J.        (INDIRA BANERJEE)       .….………………………J.      (J.K. MAHESHWARI) New Delhi: July 06, 2022. 28