2021 INSC 0604
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6098 OF 2021
Mohd. Raza & Anr.                   ..Appellant (S)
VERSUS
Geeta @ Geeta Devi                            ..Respondent (S)
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   14.11.2019   passed   by   the   High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Revision Petition No.175
of   2019,   by   which   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the   said   civil
revision   petition   by   quashing   and   setting   aside   the   order
dated   27.07.2019   passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court   and
consequently passed a decree of eviction on admission under
Order   XII   Rule   6   of   CPC,   the   original   defendants   have
preferred the present appeal. 
1

2. The   facts   leading   to   the   present   appeal   in   nutshell   are   as
under:­
2.1 That   the   respondent   –   original   plaintiff   had   instituted   Civil
Suit   No.805   of   2018   against   the   original   defendants   –
appellants   herein   in   the   court   of   Senior   Civil   Judge,   (East)
Karkardooma,   Delhi   for   possession,   mandatory   injunction,
permanent   injunction   and   mesne   profit   with   respect   to   the
property bearing No.246/4, Ground Floor, East School Block,
Mandawali,   Delhi   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   suit
property).   It   was   averred   in   the   plaint   that   she   is   the   lawful
owner   of   the   suit   property   since   15.01.2013   and   defendant
No.1   is   the   tenant   vide   rent   agreement   dated   14.03.2016,
who   illegally   sub­let   the   property   to   defendant   No.2   without
any   prior   intimation   to   the  plaintiff   and   thus   the  tenancy   of
defendant No.1 has been revoked/terminated by the plaintiff
on 17.07.2018. Thus the plaintiff claimed the ownership and
claimed that original defendant No.1 is the tenant. 
2.2 At   this   stage,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   the   defendants
filed the written statement (the contents of the same shall be
dealt with herein below). After the written statement filed on
behalf   of   the   defendants,   the   plaintiff   filed   an   application
2

before the learned Trial Court to pass a decree on admission
under   Order   XII   Rule   6   of   CPC   on   the   ground   that   in   the
written   statement   the   defendants   have   admitted   that   the
plaintiff is the owner and defendant No.1 is the tenant of the
suit property. The said application was opposed on behalf of
the   defendants.   A   detailed   reply   was   filed   under   Order   XII
Rule   6   of   CPC   on   behalf   of   the   defendants.   That   thereafter
the   learned   Trial   Court   dismissed   the   said   application   vide
order dated 27.07.2019 by observing that from the perusal of
written statement filed by the defendants, it is palpably clear
that   defendant   No.2   did   not   make   any   admission   regarding
the   ownership   of   the   plaintiff   and   their   tenancy   in   the   suit
property.    
3. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   order   passed   by
the   learned   Trial   Court   dated   27.07.2019,   dismissing   the
application   under   Order   XII   Rule   6   of   CPC   and   refusing   to
pass   the   decree   on   admission,   the   plaintiff   –   respondent
herein   preferred   the   revision   petition   before   the   High   Court.
By   the   impugned   judgment   and   order,   the   High   Court   has
allowed   the   said   revision   application   and   quashed   and   set
aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing
3

the   application   under   Order   XII   Rule   6   of   CPC   and
consequently   passed   a   decree   for   eviction   in   favour   of   the
plaintiff   and   against   the   defendants.   At   this   stage,   it   is
required to be noted that in the written statement, it was the
specific case on behalf of the defendants – appellants herein
that   defendant   No.2   is   the   absolute   owner   of   the   suit
property   and   has   paid   a   sum   of   Rs.19   lakhs   to   the   plaintiff
and therefore she is in possession of the suit property as an
owner.   However,   it   is   to   be   noted   that   defendant   No.2   had
instituted a suit against the plaintiff for specific performance
of   the   contract/agreement   on   the   basis   of   which   defendant
No.2 is claiming to be the owner of the suit property and the
said suit is still pending. 
4. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   judgment   and
order passed by the High Court, the original defendants have
preferred the present appeal.  
5. Shri Sanobar Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants   –   original   defendants,   has   vehemently   submitted
that   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case   the   High
Court has materially erred in passing a decree on admission
under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. It is submitted that the High
4

Court   has   failed   to   appreciate   and   consider   the   fact   that   as
such   there   was   no   clear   admission   on   the   part   of   the
defendants   that   the   plaintiff   is   the   owner   and   that   the
defendants/defendant No.1 is the tenant. It is submitted that
therefore   in   absence   of   any   clear   and   unambiguous
admission, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to the decree on
admission. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this court
in the case of Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd. reported in
(2011) 15 SCC 273. 
5.1 It   is   further   submitted   by   the   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   appellants   that   not   only   there   are   no   specific
admissions on the part of the defendants that the plaintiff is
the owner of the suit property, but it was the specific case on
behalf of defendant No.2 that she is the absolute owner of the
suit   property   pursuant   to   the   agreement   to   sell   executed   by
the plaintiff and that defendant No.2 has paid a sum of Rs.19
lakhs to the plaintiff and therefore she is in possession of the
suit property as an owner. 
5.2 It   is   further   submitted   by   the   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   appellants   that   even   otherwise   the   substantive
suit   filed   by   defendant   No.2   against   the   plaintiff   for   specific
5

performance   of   the   contract   to   sell   is   pending   before   the
learned Trial Court and that there is an injunction in favour
of defendant No.2 – plaintiff in that suit.   
6. The   present   appeal   is   vehemently   opposed   by   Shri   Harsh
Kumar,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respondent   –   original   plaintiff.   It   is   submitted   that   in   the
facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case   and   considering   the
averments in the written statement, it can be seen that there
is   a   clear   admission   on   the   part   of   the   defendants   that   the
plaintiff   is   the   owner.   He   has   taken   us   to   the   relevant
averments   in   the   written   statement   filed   on   behalf   of   the
defendants – appellants herein. 
6.1 It is submitted that it is the case on behalf of the defendants
more particularly defendant No.2 that she is the owner of the
suit   property,   therefore   she   is   in   possession   of   the   suit
property as an owner. It is submitted that defendant no.2 is
claiming the ownership on the basis of the agreement to sell.
It   is   submitted   that   agreement   to   sell   does   not   confer
ownership at all.   A person in whose favour agreement to sell
is   executed   becomes   the   owner   either   pursuant   to   the   sale
deed   executed   by   the   executor   and/or   a   decree   for   specific
6

performance of the contract has been passed. It is submitted
that   even   as   per   the   case   of   defendant   No.2   the   suit   for
specific performance is pending.   
6.2 It   is   submitted   that   if   the   written   statement   as   a   whole   is
considered, in that case there is an admission on the part of
the   defendants   that   plaintiff   is   the   owner   and   that   even   the
tenancy in favour of defendant No.1 also has been admitted.
However, it is the case on behalf of defendant  No.2 that  she
is the owner and as an owner she is in possession which has
no legal basis. It is submitted that therefore in the facts and
circumstances of the case the High Court has rightly passed
a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. 
7. We   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
the respective parties at length.   
8. At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   as   such
respondent   herein   ­   plaintiff   filed   the   suit   for   possession,
mandatory   injunction,   permanent   injunction   and   mesne
profit with respect to the property bearing No.246/4, Ground
Floor,   East   School   Block,   Mandawali,   Delhi   against   the
defendants   –   appellants   herein,   claiming   to   be   the   owner   of
the   suit   property   and   claiming   that   defendant   No.1   is   the
7

tenant   and   defendant   No.1   has   sub­let   the   suit
property/premises in favour of defendant No.2. In the written
statement,   it   was   the   case   on   behalf   of   the   defendants   –
appellants herein that defendants are not  ‘now’  the tenant of
the   plaintiff   but   the   actual   owner   of   the   suit   property.   In
paragraphs   1   to   3,   it   is   stated   in   the   written   statement   as
under:­ 
1. “That the present suit is not maintainable as the
answering   defendants   are   not   now   the   tenant   of
the   plaintiff   but   the   actual   owner   of   the   suit
property.   The   plaintiff   sold   the   suit   property   in
question   to   the   answering   defendants   for   which
some   documents   were   also   executed   by   the
plaintiff in favour of the answering defendant no.
2/Seema Begum on 15.01.2017 and 29.01.2017,
hence   the   suit   of   the   plaintiff   is   liable   to   be
dismissed with heavy cost.
2. That the plaintiff has filed a false and fabricated
suit  by  concealing  the   material  and  true  facts of
the   case   and   the   plaintiff   wants   to   harass   the
answering   defendants   and   to   grab   the   earnest
money   of   the   answering   defendants   by   filing   the
present   suit.   It   is   submitted   that   the   suit   of   the
plaintiff   is   not   maintainable   in   the   eye   of   law
because   this   matter   is   not   the   suit   for
possession,   mandatory   injunction,   permanent
injunction   and   mesne   profit   between   the   parties
but   it   is   the   matter   of   the   ownership,   cheating
and   grabbing   the   money   of   Rs.   19   Lakhs   of   the
answering   defendant   and   it   is   the   matter   of
compliance   the   agreement   between   the   parties
which is executed by the plaintiff on 29.01.2017
hence   the   suit   of   the   plaintiff   is   liable   to   be
dismissed with cost.
8

3. That   it   is   submitted   that   the   suit   property   is
absolutely   concerned   with   the   defendants.   The
defendant no. 2/Seema Begum is absolute owner
of   the   suit   property   and   she   has   every   right   or
interest in the suit property in question. She has
purchased   the   suit   property   in   question   and
other   part   of   the   suit   property   (measuring   area
30   sq.   yards   and   50   sq.   yards)   and   the
defendants   had   taken   the   peaceful   possession
both   part   of   the   suit   property   from   the   plaintiff.
The defendant no. 2 has also filed a case/suit for
specific   performance   of   contract,   declaration,
eviction   and   permanent   injunction   against   the
plaintiff which is pending for adjudication before
the   Hon'ble   Court   of   Sh.   Sanatan   Prasad,   Ld.
ADJ, East, KKD Courts, Delhi”
Thus   from   the   aforesaid,   it   is   clear   that   the   defendants   are
claiming   the   ownership   of   the   suit   property.   The   defendant
no.2   is   claiming   to   be   in   possession   as   an   owner   and
claiming to be the owner. It can also be seen that the plaintiff
has filed the suit as an owner. It is not in dispute and even it
is   the   case   on   behalf   of   the   defendants   that   defendant   No.2
had   instituted   the   suit   for   specific   performance   against   the
plaintiff   with   respect   to   the   suit   property,   meaning   thereby
there is a clear cut admission that the plaintiff is the owner. 
9. It is to be noted at this stage that defendant No.2 cannot be
said   to   be   the   owner   as   her   suit   for   specific   performance   is
yet to be decided by the learned Trial Court. Unless and until
9

there   is   a   decree   passed   in   her   favour   and   the   decree   for
specific   performance   is   passed   and/or   the   sale   deed   is
executed pursuant to such a decree, she cannot be said to be
the   owner   of   the   suit   property.   Till   the   suit   for   specific
performance   is   decided,   the   plaintiff   –   respondent   herein
continues   to   be   the   owner   and   defendant   No.1   –   appellant
herein continues to be the tenant. In the written statement in
paragraph   1,   it   is   specifically   stated   by   the   defendants   that
the   defendants   are   not   ‘ now ’   the   tenant   of   the   plaintiff   but
the   actual   owner   of   the   suit   property.   As   observed
hereinabove,   till   the   suit   for   specific   performance   is   decided
in   favour   of   the   defendants,   more   particularly   defendant
No.2, she cannot be said to be the owner  and that therefore
the   plaintiff   –   respondent   herein   continues   to   be   the   owner
and   defendant   No.1   continues   to   be   the   tenant.   Therefore,
the   aforesaid   is   rightly  treated   as   an   admission   on   behalf   of
the  defendants  with  respect to  the  ownership  of the plaintiff
and   that   defendant   No.1   is   a   tenant.   Therefore,   the   High
Court   as   such   has   rightly   passed   the   decree   on   admission
under   Order   XII   Rule   6   of   CPC   which   in   the   facts   and
circumstances   of   the   case   cannot   be   said   to   be   erroneous.
10

However, at the same time, when the substantive suit filed by
defendant   No.2   against   the   plaintiff   for   specific   performance
is pending, it is to be observed that the decree passed by the
High   Court   by   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   shall
always   be   subject   to   the   outcome   of   the   said   suit   filed   by
defendant   No.2   against   the   plaintiff   and   if   ultimately   she
succeeds in the suit, and a decree for specific performance is
passed   and   the   learned   Trial   Court   passes   the   decree   for
possession   (if   prayed),   then   necessary   consequences   shall
follow and the plaintiff, subject to filing the appeal, shall have
to   abide   by   the   decree   that   may   be   passed   in   the   suit   for
specific   performance.   It   also   goes   without   saying   that   any
injunction granted by the learned Trial Court in the suit filed
by   defendant   No.2   for   specific   performance   of   the   contract
shall   also   not   be   affected   unless   subsequently   the   order   of
injunction   if   any   in   favour   of   defendant   No.2   is   modified   by
the learned Trial Court.
10. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above,   the
present   appeal   fails   and   the   impugned   judgment   and   order
passed   by   the   High   Court   is   confirmed   subject   to   the
observations   made   in   earlier   paragraph   No.   9.   In   the   facts
11

and   circumstances   of   the   case   there  shall   be   no   order   as   to
costs. 
…………………………………J.
                 (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
        (A. S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi, 
October   4 th
, 2021
12