Disposed¶13

Mehar Singh Nagpal v. Anchal Bhatia

Delhi HC14 May 2025CM(M)/1428/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CM(M) 1428/2022; Mehar Singh Nagpal vs Anchal Bhatia; High Court of Delhi; Manoj Jain, J.; 14.05.2025; Order XII Rule 6 CPC; admission-decree application dismissed as premature; lease termination clause; notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act, 1882; suit for possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits and injunction; landlord-tenant; vacation of stay granted 19.12.2022; petition disposed of as not pressed; Trial Court requested to expedite suit preferably within a year; rights and contentions left open.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as not pressed (without prejudice); Trial Court requested to make best endeavour to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within a year; next date of 22.08.2025 cancelled; all rights and contentions of parties left open. ¶13

Mehar Singh Nagpal Vs Anchal Bhatia — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order dated 22.08.2022 dismissing the petitioner's application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC (admission-decree) on the premise that the suit was premature was sustainable, given the contention that the lease deed contained a termination clause and the tenancy had been terminated by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Jain, J.), order dated 14.05.2025 in CM(M) 1428/2022 - Mehar Singh Nagpal v. Anchal Bhatia. The petitioner/plaintiff had challenged the Trial Court's order dated 22.08.2022 dismissing his application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for an admission-decree in a suit for possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits and injunction against his tenant/lessee. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the lease contained a termination clause, that the lessee violated its terms, and that the tenancy was terminated by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, so the Trial Court erred in treating the suit as premature; the respondent/lessee refuted these contentions. It was apprised that there were no arrears of rent, rent being deposited month by month in the plaintiff's bank account. Without prejudice, petitioner's counsel agreed not to press the petition if the Trial Court was requested to expedite the suit, and respondent's counsel undertook full cooperation. The Court disposed of the petition as not pressed, cancelled the next date of 22.08.2025, requested the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a year, and clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties remain open. No merits determination was made on the Order XII Rule 6 question.

¶1

$~43

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 1428/2022

¶4

MEHAR SINGH NAGPAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddharth Kaushik, Advocate. versus

¶5

ANCHAL BHATIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Bhavya Kholi with Mr. Sanskar Aggarwal, Advocates.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 14.05.2025 CM APPL. 24528/2025(exemption)

¶10

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

CM(M) 1428/2022& CM APPL. 24527/2025(vacation of stay)

¶12

Petitioner/plaintiff has moved the abovesaid application seeking vacation of stay granted by this Court on 19.12.2022.

¶13

Learned counsel for respondent/tenant also appears on advance notice and, with the consent of both the parties, the matter has been taken up today itself.

¶14

Petitioner has filed a suit for possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits and injunction against his tenant/lessee.

¶15

After completion of pleadings, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application seeking admission-decree.

¶16

Such application moved under Order XII Rule 6 CPC has been dismissed vide order dated 22.08.2022.

¶17

Such order is under challenge.

¶18

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since the lease deed was containing a termination clause, and since the terms of the lease had been

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/05/2025 at 13:04:32

¶21

CM(M) 1428/2022 1

¶22

violated by the lessee, the termination was valid and the learned Trial Court dismissed the application on a wrong premise that the suit was premature. He does admit that the lease was for period of three years and such period had not expired when suit was filed but since the terms were not complied with by the lessee, and since there was a termination clause, the tenancy was terminated by sending a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and in such a situation, when the lease deed contained a termination clause, the learned Trial Court should not have disallowed application.

¶23

All such contentions have, however, been refuted by respondent/lessee.

¶24

When asked, it was also apprised that as on date there are no arrears of rent, and rent is being deposited, month by month, in the Bank Account of the plaintiff by the defendant.

¶25

Fact remains that there is no further head way in the abovesaid suit and the evidence could not be led by the plaintiff as when this matter was taken by this Court on 19.12.2022, the further proceedings were directed to be deferred.

¶26

After hearing arguments, learned counsel for petitioner submits that, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, the petitioner would not press the present petition if a request is made to the learned Trial Court to expedite the disposal of the abovesaid suit.

¶27

Learned counsel for respondent also submits that he would render full cooperation and assistance to learned Trial Court to ensure that there is no delay in disposal of the suit in question.

¶28

In view of the above, the petitioner/plaintiff, the present petition stands disposed of as not pressed.

¶29

The next date i.e. 22.08.2025 stands cancelled.

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/05/2025 at 13:04:32

¶32

CM(M) 1428/2022 2

¶33

However, since the issue involved is very short and precise, learned Trial Court is requested to make best endeavour to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a year from today. 16. It is, however, clarified that all the rights and contentions of parties have been left open.

¶34

MANOJ JAIN, J

¶35

MAY 14, 2025/ sw/PB

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶38

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/05/2025 at 13:04:32

¶39

CM(M) 1428/2022 3

Mehar Singh Nagpal v. Anchal Bhatia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehar Singh Nagpal v. Anchal Bhatia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Shailendra Bhushan Sharma Vs Sanjay Chopra

Smt. Praveen Lata Jain Vs Sh. Naveen Kumar Jain & Anr.

Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs Hans Sachdev

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs M/S Atma Ram Properties (P). Ltd.

Vishal Maheshwari Vs G4S Facility Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Shiv Construction Company and Anr. Vs Raj Kumar Sharma Since Deceased through Legal Heirs

Seema Rani Jain Vs M/S Canadian Speciality Vinyls

Zenith Vipers Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jasmeet Singh Marwah

Dr. Shailendra Bhushan Sharma Vs Sanjay Chopra

Smt. Praveen Lata Jain Vs Sh. Naveen Kumar Jain & Anr.

Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs Hans Sachdev

M/S Roots Multiclean Ltd. Vs M/S Somaditya Management and Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd.

Mukesh Kumar Vs Archana Surjan

Ramesh Kapoor Vs Usha Kapoor & Ors.