//
you're reading...
legal issues

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. 12 r. 6 – Judgment on admission – Held: There should be a clear and unequivocal admission of the case of the plaintiff by the defendant – It is essentially a question of fact and depends on the facts of the case – On facts, in suit for possession by landlord against tenant, there is no clear admission of the case of landlord about termination of tenancy by tenant in its written statement or in its reply to the petition of landlord u/Or. 12 r. 6 – Thus, order of trial court and High Court, set aside – Matter remanded to trial court for disposal of the suit. The respondent-landlord filed suit against the appellant-tenant for recovery of possession and mesne profits on the ground that the lease deed had expired by efflux of time and notice to that effect was sent to the appellant but the appellant failed to vacate the suit property. The appellant filed written statement. The respondent did not file any rejoinder. They filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. The High Court upheld the order of the trial court holding that the case of ejectment was made out against the appellant on the basis of admission of the case of the respondent in the written statement filed by the appellant. Hence, the appeal. =Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The principles of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, can be followed only if there is a clear and unequivocal admission of the case of the plaintiff by the appellant. Whether or not there is a clear, unambiguous admission by one party of the case of the other party is essentially a question of fact and the decision of this question depends on the facts of the case. This question, namely, whether there is a clear admission or not cannot be decided on the basis of a judicial precedent. [Paras 12 and 13] [552-G-H; 553-A-B] 1.2. In the instant case, the respondent filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing a judgment on admission. In the said petition, the respondents-plaintiffs averred that in view of the admission on existence of relationship of landlord and tenant and thereafter, service of the termination notice, the only question left for adjudication for the purpose of possession is “whether the termination of the tenancy has been validly terminated?” To that application the appellant gave a reply, again denying that there was any admission by them about termination or determination of tenancy. It was stated that in the suit issues are still to be framed and the case be tried in accordance with CPC as there is no admission by the appellant and the respondents-plaintiffs had to prove its case with legally admissible evidence. As such prayer was made to dismiss the application of the respondents-plaintiffs under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. [Paras 8, 10 and 11] [551-E; 552-A-E] 1.3. It cannot be said that there is a clear admission of the case of the respondents-plaintiffs about termination of tenancy by the appellant in its written statement or in its reply to the petition of the respondents- plaintiffs under Order 12 Rule 6. The parties have confined their case of admission to their pleading only. The counsel for the respondents- plaintiffs fairly stated before this Court that he is not invoking the case of admission `otherwise than on pleading’. Thus, in the pleadings of the appellant there is no clear admission of the case of respondents- plaintiffs. [Paras 14 and 15] [553-D-G] 1.4. In view of the facts of the instant case, the judgment of the High Court as well as of the Additional District Judge cannot be upheld and are set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court for expeditious disposal of the suit as early as possible [Paras 22 and 23] [555-E-F] Karam Kapahi and Ors. vs. M/s. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and Anr. 2010 (3) SCALE 569, distinguished. Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Ltd. vs. United Bank of India and Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 120; Koramall Ramballav vs. Mongilal Dalimchand 23 Calcutta Weekly Notes (1918-19) 1017; J.C. Galstaun vs. E.D. Sassoon & Co., Ltd. 27 Calcutta Weekly Notes (1922-23) 783; Abdul Rahman and brothers vs. Parbati Devi AIR 1933 Lahore 403, referred to. Gilbert vs. Smith 1875-76 (2) Chancery Division 686; Hughes vs. London, Edinburgh, and Glasgow Assurance Company (Limited) Times Law Reports 1891-92 Volume 8 pg 81; Landergan vs. Feast Law Times Reports 1886-87 Volume 85 pg 42; Ellis vs. Allen (1914) 1 Ch. D. 904, referred to. Case Law Reference: 2010 (3) SCALE 569 Distinguished. Para 13 (2000) 7 SCC 120 Referred to. Para 14 1875-76 (2) Chancery Division 686 Referred to. Para 16 Times Law Reports 1891-92 Volume 8 pg 81 Referred to. Para 17 Law Times Reports 1886-87 Volume 85 pg 42 Referred to. Para 18 23 Calcutta Weekly Notes (1918-19) 1017 Referred to. Para 19 27 Calcutta Weekly Notes (1922-23) 783 Referred to. Para 20 (1914) 1 Ch. D. 904 Referred to. Para 20 AIR 1933 Lahore 403 Referred to. Para 21 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4344 of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 28.11.2008 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RFA No. 465 of 2008. Shiv Kumar Suri for the Appellant. K.V. Viswanathan, Arunima Dwivedi, Anil Kaushik, Gopal Sigh Chauhan, Neha S. Verma and Shiv Prakash Pandey for the Respondents.

The supreme court of india. Taken about 170 m ...

Image via Wikipedia

 REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4344 OF 2010
 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.2689 of 2009)

M/s Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. ..Appellant(s)

 Versus

M/s Jasbir Singh Chadha (Huf) & Anr. ..Respondent(s)

 J U D G M E N T

GANGULY, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and

 order dated 28.11.2008 passed by the High Court of

 Delhi in Regular First Appeal No.465 of 2008. In the

 impugned judgment upon admission the High Court came

 to a finding that a case of ejectment was made out

 against the appellant on the basis of admission of

 the case of the plaintiff-landlord in the written

 statement filed by appellant. In passing the said

 1
 judgment the High Court affirmed the judgment and

 decree of dispossession passed by the Additional

 District Judge, Delhi on 23.09.2008 against the

 appellant.

3. The material facts of the case are that the

 respondents-plaintiffs, claiming to be the

 landlords/owners of the premises bearing Flat

 No.205, (2nd Floor), Arunachal Building, 19,

 Barakhambha Road, New Delhi-110001 having area of

 581 sq. ft., (super area) (hereinafter, `the suit

 premises') filed a suit against the appellant for

 recovery of possession and mesne profit. The case of

 the plaintiff-landlord in the plaint is that the

 appellant was inducted as a tenant vide lease deed

 dated 07.07.2003 at a monthly rent of Rs.23,200/-

 for a period of three years with effect from

 07.07.2003. According to the respondents-plaintiffs

 the said lease dated 07.07.2003 was initially for a

 period of three years and which was to be renewed

 for a further period of three years as per the

 mutual consent of both the parties with 20% increase

 in the monthly rent. The main case of the plaintiff-

 landlord is that the said lease deed had expired by

 efflux of time and notice to that effect was sent to

 2
 appellant which was enclosed with the plaint. In

 paragraph 6 of the plaint further averment is that

 the appellant, despite determination of its tenancy

 of the suit property, has failed to vacate the suit

 property, and handover the possession thereof to the

 respondents-plaintiffs.

4. The stand of the respondents-plaintiffs before the

 Civil Court and also the High Court and before this

 Court also was that the case of termination of

 tenancy has been admitted by the appellant in its

 written statement.

5. In order to appreciate this controversy it will be

 proper to set out the relevant averments in the

 plaint and written statement of the parties.

6. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaint on which the

 respondents-plaintiffs rely are as follows:-

 "5. That the tenancy has expired by efflux of
 time but for the precautionary measure, the
 Plaintiffs vide notice dated July 15, 2006
 terminated the tenancy of the Defendant, which
 was sent via Regd. Ad. & UPC. The aforesaid
 notice dated July 15, 2006 was duly served upon
 the defendant. The copy of said notice is
 annexed herewith as Annexure A-3. The
 registration receipt, UPC and acknowledgement

 3
 card are annexed herewith as Annexure A-4 to A-6
 respectively.

 6. That the defendant, despite, the
 determination of its tenancy of the said suit
 property has failed to vacate the suit property
 and handover the possession thereof to the
 Plaintiffs".

7. In the written statement, which was filed by the

 appellant, paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaint have

 been dealt with in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the written

 statement respectively. Those two paragraphs are set

 out below:-

 "5. That the contents of para 5 of the plaint
 are a matter of record. It is submitted that
 tenancy has neither expired by efflux of time
 nor it has been terminated.

 6. That in reply to the contents of para 6 of
 the plaint, it is submitted that defendant is in
 possession of the premises. There has been no
 determination of tenancy.

8. It is clear from a perusal of the aforesaid

 averments in the written statement that the

 appellant has disputed (a) the fact of expiry of

 tenancy by efflux of time; (b) the appellant has

 also disputed that there has been a determination of

 tenancy. So far as receipt of notice referred to in

 4
 paragraph 5 of the plaint is concerned, there has

 been no denial by the appellant.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued before

 us that the lease deed cannot be terminated in view

 of certain clauses contained in the lease. The said

 argument was opposed by the learned counsel for the

 respondents-plaintiffs. But in the facts of this

 case and in view of the nature of the judgment we

 propose to pass we need not decide those contentions

 at all.

10. It may be noted herein that to the written statement

 filed by the appellant, the respondents-plaintiffs

 did not file any rejoinder. They filed an

 application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of

 Civil Procedure for passing a judgment on admission.

 In the said petition in paragraph 4, the

 respondents-plaintiffs also averred as follows:-

 "4. That in view of the admission (i) On
 existence of relationship of landlord and tenant
 and there after (ii) service of the termination
 notice, the only question left for adjudication
 for the purpose of possession is "whether the
 termination of the tenancy has been validly
 terminated?"

 5
11. To that application the appellant had given a reply.

 In paragraph 2 of the reply it was again denied by

 the appellant that there was any admission by them

 about termination or determination of tenancy. In

 the said reply it has been stated that in the suit

 issues are still to be framed and the case be tried

 in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code as there

 is no admission by the appellant and the

 respondents-plaintiffs have to prove its case with

 legally admissible evidence.

 As such prayer was made to dismiss the application

 of the respondents-plaintiffs under Order 12 Rule 6.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs

 relied on a judgment of this Court in Karam Kapahi &

 Others vs. M/s. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust &

 Another reported in 2010 (3) SCALE 569 and contended

 that in view of the principles laid down in that

 case, this Court may affirm the judgment of the High

 Court in the instant case. This Court is unable to

 accept the aforesaid contention. In Karam Kapahi

 (supra) a Bench of this Court analyzed the

 principles of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code and held

 that in the facts of that case there was clear

 admission on the part of the lessee about non-

 6
 payment of lease rent. The said admission was made

 by the lessee in several proceedings apart from its

 pleading in the suit. In view of such clear

 admission, the Court applied the principles of Order

 12 Rule 6 in the case of Karam Kapahi (supra). The

 principles of law laid down in Karam Kapahi (supra)

 can be followed in this case only if there is a

 clear and unequivocal admission of the case of the

 plaintiff by the appellant.

13. Whether or not there is a clear, unambiguous

 admission by one party of the case of the other

 party is essentially a question of fact and the

 decision of this question depends on the facts of

 the case. This question, namely, whether there is a

 clear admission or not cannot be decided on the

 basis of a judicial precedent. Therefore, even

 though the principles in Karam Kapahi (supra) may be

 unexceptionable they cannot be applied in the

 instant case in view of totally different fact

 situation.

14. In Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. Vs. United Bank of

 India and others reported in (2000) 7 SCC 120 the

 provision of Order 12 Rule 6 came up for

 7
 consideration before this Court. This Court on a

 detailed consideration of the provisions of Order 12

 Rule 6 made it clear "wherever there is a clear

 admission of facts in the face of which it is

 impossible for the party making such admission to

 succeed" the principle will apply. In the instant

 case it cannot be said that there is a clear

 admission of the case of the respondents-plaintiffs

 about termination of tenancy by the appellant in its

 written statement or in its reply to the petition of

 the respondents-plaintiffs under Order 12 Rule 6.

15. It may be noted here that in this case parties have

 confined their case of admission to their pleading

 only. The learned counsel for the respondents-

 plaintiffs fairly stated before this Court that he

 is not invoking the case of admission `otherwise

 than on pleading'. That being the position this

 Court finds that in the pleadings of the appellant

 there is no clear admission of the case of

 respondents-plaintiffs.

16. In this connection reference may be made to an old

 decision of the Court of Appeal between Gilbert vs.

 Smith reported in 1875-76 (2) Chancery Division 686.

 8
 Dealing with the principles of Order XL, Rule 11,

 which was a similar provision in English Law, Lord

 Justice James held, "if there was anything clearly

 admitted upon which something ought to be done, the

 plaintiff might come to the Court at once to have

 that thing done, without any further delay or

 expense" (see page 687). Lord Justice Mellish

 expressing the same opinion made the position

 further clear by saying, "it must, however, be such

 an admission of facts as would shew that the

 plaintiff is clearly entitled to the order asked

 for". The learned Judge made it further clear by

 holding, "the rule was not meant to apply when there

 is any serious question of law to be argued. But if

 there is an admission on the pleading which clearly

 entitles the plaintiff to an order, then the

 intention was that he should not have to wait but

 might at once obtain any order" (see page 689).

17. In another old decision of the Court of Appeal in

 the case of Hughes vs. London, Edinburgh, and

 Glasgow Assurance Company (Limited) reported in The

 Times Law Reports 1891-92 Volume 8 at page 81,

 similar principles were laid down by Lord Justice

 Lopes, wherein His Lordship held "judgment ought not

 9
 to be signed upon admissions in a pleading or an

 affidavit, unless the admissions were clear and

 unequivocal". Both Lord Justice Esher and Lord

 Justice Fry concurred with the opinion of Lord

 Justice Lopes.

18. In yet another decision of the Court of Appeal in

 Landergan vs. Feast reported in The Law Times

 Reports 1886-87 Volume 85 at page 42, in an appeal

 from Chancery Division, Lord Justice Lindley and

 Lord Justice Lopes held that party is not entitled

 to apply under the aforesaid rule unless there is a

 clear admission that the money is due and

 recoverable in the action in which the admission is

 made.

19. The decision in Landergan (supra) was followed by

 the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in

 Koramall Ramballav vs. Mongilal Dalimchand reported

 in 23 Calcutta Weekly Notes (1918-19) 1017. Chief

 Justice Sanderson, speaking for the Bench, accepted

 the formulation of Lord Justice Lopes and held that

 admission in Order 12, Rule 6 must be a "clear

 admission".

 10
20. In the case of J.C. Galstaun vs. E.D. Sassoon & Co.,

 Ltd., reported in 27 Calcutta Weekly Notes (1922-23)

 783, a Bench of Calcutta High Court presided over by

 Hon'ble Justice Sir Asutosh Mookerjee sitting with

 Justice Rankin while construing the provisions of

 Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code followed the aforesaid

 decision in Hughes (supra) and also the view of Lord

 Justice Lopes in Landergan (supra) and held that

 these provisions are attracted "where the other

 party has made a plain admission entitling the

 former to succeed. This rule applies where there is

 a clear admission of the facts on the face of which

 it is impossible for the party making it to

 succeed". In saying so His Lordship quoted the

 observation of Justice Sargent in Ellis vs. Allen

 [(1914) 1 Ch. D. 904] {See page 787}.

21. Similar view has been expressed by Chief Justice

 Broadway in the case of Abdul Rahman and brothers

 vs. Parbati Devi reported in AIR 1933 Lahore 403.

 The learned Chief Justice held that before a Court

 can act under order 12, Rule 6, the admission must

 be clear and unambiguous.

22. For the reasons discussed above and in view of the

 facts of this case this Court cannot uphold the
 11
 judgment of the High Court as well as of the

 Additional District Judge. Both the judgments of the

 High Court and of the Additional District Judge are

 set aside.

23. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for

 expeditious disposal of the suit as early as

 possible, preferably within a period of six months

 from the date of service of this order on the

 learned trial Court. It is made clear that this

 Court has not made any observation on the merits of

 the case.

24. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to

 costs.

 .....................J.
 (G.S. SINGHVI)

 .....................J.
 (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi
May 7, 2010 12
About these ads

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 474,214 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 472 other followers

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 472 other followers