The court established that tenancy rights under the 1956 Act were not extinguished by the 1997 Act, emphasizing the necessity of clear admissions for eviction under CPC.

JUDGMENT :

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

1. The appellants (the defendants in the suit), are here in challenge to the judgement dated 08.12.2022 whereby their Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge (which was a judgment on admission), dated 29.06.2022. While decreeing the suit, the Court had directed the appellants (tenant) to vacate the suit property and handover the vacant possession to the respondent-plaintiff, within sixty days!

2. This is a landlord-tenant matter arising out of an eviction suit filed by the respondent before the Calcutta High Court, inter alia, praying for eviction of appellants from Room No.208, 2nd Floor, 25-A Park Street, Kolkata (hereafter referred as the “premises”). Even before the appellants could file a Written Statement, the plaintiff, without loosing any time, filed an application under Order XII Rule 6¹[6. Judgment on admissions.— (1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.

(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.] Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”) seeking a ‘judgment on admission’ by relying on the deposition of defendant no.1 in another case where the defendant had admitted that the tenancy was in his mother’s name. According to the plaintiff/respondent, since the mother of the defendants/appellants had admittedly died way back in the year 2009, they are not entitled to stay in the premises beyond the year 2014 in terms of section 2(g) of the 1997 Act, which protects the rights of the children and dependents of a tenant only for a limited period of five years.

3. At the outset, we must state that both, the learned single- judge bench and to some extent even the Division Bench of the High Court, in the present case, ought not to have decreed the suit of the landlord on the basis of alleged “admission” by the appellant no.1 which was made in another unconnected matter, as to our mind, it does not pass muster the test of “admission” visualised in Order XII Rule 6 CPC. It is not that a court cannot pass a judgment on the basis of an admission made in some other case. All the same, what has to be kept in mind is that Order XII Rule 6 is an enabling provision conferring wide discretionary powers on the courts which cannot be claimed by any party as a matter of right. Courts can invoke Order XII Rule 6 only in cases where admissions are unconditional, unequivocal and unambiguous or when admission is based upon undisputed inferences. (See: Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors. v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan (Smt) And Anr. (2005) 11 SCC 279, Raveesh Chand Jain v. Raj Rani Jain (2015) 8 SCC 428, Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India And Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 120)

Here, we would like to reproduce that portion of the cross- examination of appellant no. 1, as quoted by the Single Judge of the High Court, which is alleged to be an admission on part of the appellant no.1 to deny him the right of occupying the disputed premises. It is as follows:

“33. Flat No.208 in respect whereof you are an occupant- is it a tenancy?

Yes, it is in my mother’s name.

34. Your mother is Usha Mitra- am I right? Yes, Late Usha Mitra.

35. When did Usha Mitra expire?

On 3rd November, 2009”

This deposition is the so called ‘admission’ on which the respondent-landlord relies to claim that only the mother (Usha Mitra) of the appellants was the tenant and not the appellants. The appellant no.1 had admitted that the tenancy was in the name of his mother.

We have perused the examination-in-chief and cros