Admitted landlord-tenant relationship justifies summary decree for possession and rent under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

The Appellants (tenants) challenged a common judgment dated 31.07.2023, which decreed two suits for possession, arrears of rent, and mesne profits in favor of the Respondents (landlords) under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC

The tenancies involved two properties in Naraina, New Delhi: one room let out in 2008 at Rs. 4,000/month [para 3] and three rooms let out in 2014 at Rs. 17,000/month

The Respondents alleged that the Appellants defaulted on rent since January 2018 and failed to vacate despite legal notices and written undertakings dated 01.05.2022 and 19.08.2022

The Appellants admitted the landlord-tenant relationship and the rate of rent but contended that rent was paid in cash, that they had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 5,00,000 to the Respondents' family, and that the undertakings were obtained through coercion

They further argued the suits were commercial and should have been tried under the Commercial Courts Act

1. Whether there were clear and unequivocal admissions by the Appellants to justify a decree for possession and arrears of rent under Order XII Rule 6 CPC

2. Whether the suits were commercial in nature, rendering them non-maintainable before a regular Civil Court

The court applied Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows for judgment on admissions

It relied on Payal Vision Ltd. v. Radhika Chaudhary, establishing that in possession suits, one must only prove the landlord-tenant relationship and the termination of tenancy

Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the court noted that filing a suit serves as legal notice to vacate, citing M/s Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh

Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was applied to estop the tenant from challenging the landlord’s title

The court also referenced Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. v. Kavit P. Lalwani regarding the expiration of leases by efflux of time

The court found that the Appellants had categorically admitted to the landlord-tenant relationship and the combined monthly rent of Rs. 21,000

Although the Appellants claimed to have paid rent in cash, the court observed that the issuance of cheques for arrears (which subsequently dishonored) and the written undertakings to pay arrears and vacate the premises corroborated the Respondents' claims of default since 2018

The court dismissed the plea of coercion regarding the undertakings as a "specious defense" lacking merit

Regarding the commercial nature of the suit, the court held that the mere use of one room on the first floor as an office does not transform a residential tenancy into a "commercial transaction" governed by the Commercial Courts Act

Since the leases had expired by efflux of time or were terminable month-to-month, the court held that the trial court correctly applied Order XII Rule 6 CPC

The court held that the admissions regarding the tenancy relationship and rent amount were sufficient for a summary judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC

It specifically directed the Appellants to pay arrears at the rates of Rs. 4,000 and Rs. 17,000 per month from January 2018 onwards

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly