2010 Supreme(SC) 432

2010 (4) Supreme 143
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
M/s Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. — Appellant
versus
M/s Jasbir Singh Chadha (Huf) & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4344 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.2689 of 2009)
Decided on : 7-05-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. 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 basis of a judicial precedent.
2. Before a Court can act under order 12, Rule 6, the admission must be clear and unambiguous.

Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure,1908- Order 12 Rule 6 - Appeal against judgment and order passed by High Court wherein upon admission the High Court came to a finding that a case of ejectment was made out against appellant on the basis of admission of case of plaintiff-landlord in the written statement filed by appellant- Respondents-plaintiffs, claiming to be landlords/owners of suit premises filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of possession and mesne profit- Case of plaintiff-landlord that appellant was inducted as a tenant by a lease deed at a monthly rent of Rs.23,200/- for a period of three years , said lease deed had expired by efflux of time and notice to that effect was sent to appellant - Stand of respondents-plaintiffs was that case of termination of tenancy had been admitted by appellant in its written statement-Held 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 under Order 12 Rule 6 would be held applicable- In the instant case it could not be said that there was 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 respondents-plaintiffs under Order 12 Rule 6- Apart from that in this case parties had confined their case of admission to their pleading only- That being the position in the pleadings of the appellant there was no clear admission of the case of respondents-plaintiffs- Decision in case of Abdul Rahman and brothers vs. Parbati Devi was relied upon wherein it was held that before a Court can act under order 12, Rule 6, the admission must be clear and unambiguous- In view of the facts of instant case both the judgments of High Court and of the Additional District Judge held liable to be set aside-Appeal allowed. (Paras 13 to 15, 21 to 24)

       Facts of the Case :

       Present Appeal has been filed against judgment and order passed by High Court wherein upon admission the High Court came to a finding that a case of ejectment was made out against appellant on the basis of admission of case of plaintiff-landlord in the written statement filed by appellant.

       Findings of the Court :

       Respondents-plaintiffs, claiming to be landlords/owners of suit premises filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of possession and mesne profit herein in the instant case. Case of plaintiff-landlord was that appellant was inducted as a tenant by a lease deed at a monthly rent of Rs.23,200/- for a period of three years , said lease deed had expired by efflux of time and notice to that effect was sent to appellant . Stand of respondents-plaintiffs was that case of termination of tenancy had been admitted by appellant in its written statement. The Court Held that 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 under Order 12 Rule 6 would be held applicable. In the instant case it could not be said that there was 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 respondents-plaintiffs under Order 12 Rule 6. Apart from that in this case parties had confined their case of admission to their pleading only. That being the position in the pleadings of the appellant there was no clear admission of the case of respondents-plaintiffs. Decision in case of Abdul Rahman and brothers vs. Parbati Devi was relied upon wherein it was held that before a Court can act under order 12, Rule 6, the admission must be clear and unambiguous. In view of the facts of instant case both the judgments of High Court and of the Additional District Judge were held liable to be set aside. Appeal was allowed.