Delhi HC: Bona Fide Triable Issues Bar Summary Eviction on Admissions

The Delhi High Court has set aside a summary possession decree, ruling that discretionary powers to pass judgment on admissions cannot be exercised when a defense raises bona fide triable issues regarding rent rates and lease validity. The judgment underscores that even a registered lease deed does not automate a summary eviction if a subsequent document or factual dispute creates a plausible need for a full-fledged trial.

A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan heard the appeal challenging a Commercial Court's order that had partly decreed a suit for possession under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The bench was tasked with determining whether the lower court was justified in invoking its enabling jurisdiction based on alleged admissions in a tenancy dispute characterized by conflicting lease documents.

The Requirement of Clear and Categorical Admissions

The High Court emphasized that the power to pronounce judgment on admissions is discretionary and must be exercised with extreme caution. The bench observed that for such a decree to be passed, the admission must be "clear, categorical, unequivocal and unconditional."

In the present case, the court found that the existence of two lease deeds with vastly different monthly rentals one registered at Rs. 1,60,000/- and another notarized at Rs. 50,000/-created a serious triable issue. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is discretionary and can be exercised only when the admission is clear, categorical, unequivocal and unconditional. The object of the provision is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment to the extent of the relief to which, on the basis of admitted facts, it is entitled. However, such power cannot be invoked where the admission is ambiguous or where serious triable issues arise requiring adjudication upon evidence."

Conflicting Lease Deeds and Factual Disputes

The Court noted that the Appellant/Defendant had denied defaulting on rent and had raised specific pleas regarding the supersession of the registered deed by a notarized one. Since the rights of the parties are governed by the contract and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Court held that the intent behind the subsequent document and the validity of the termination notice were matters of evidence.

The Court has the following directions:
"The present Appeal is allowed. The Impugned Order dated 03.06.2024 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Commercial Court for adjudication in accordance with law. The parties, along with their respective counsel, shall appear before the Commercial Court on 04.08.2026."

Background:

The dispute arose from a lease agreement for a property in Bhajanpura, Delhi. The Respondent/Plaintiff claimed the Appellant was a tenant under a registered lease deed dated November 18, 2022, at a rent of Rs. 1,60,000/- per month and had defaulted since July 2023. Consequently, the Plaintiff terminated the tenancy and sought possession. The Appellant/Defendant, however, produced a notarized lease deed dated November 23, 2022, claiming it superseded the previous deed and set the rent at Rs. 50,000/- per month. The Defendant further alleged he had deposited rent under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 after the Plaintiff refused to accept it. The Commercial Court had initially ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, but the High Court found these conflicting versions required a trial. The High Court ultimately set aside the decree and remitted the matter for a proper adjudication.

Case Details:
Case No.: RFA(COMM) 261/2024
Case Title: SONU v. SMT. ANITA GUPTA
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Deepank Yadav and Mr. Mohit Bansal, Advs.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 3543