The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of clear and unambiguous admissions in passing judgment under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, and the necessity of a full-fledged trial to decide the merits of a suit.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against order, dated 30.09.2019 passed in I.A.No. 724 of 2018 in O.S.No. 409 of 2015 on the file of VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada (for short “the Court below”).

2. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.V.V.Durga Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M.R.K. Chankravarthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Originally the suit in O.S.No. 409 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the 1st respondent for grant of eviction from the suit schedule property and for damages. The present impugned I.A. No. 724 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC seeking to pass decree and judgment in favour of the petitioner granting relief of eviction of 1st respondent, who is the 1st defendant from the suit schedule property. The 1st respondent was inducted under unregistered lease deed dated 1.5.1975 executed by the petitioner herein in favour of the 1st respondent mentioning the period of lease as 33 years. It is further stated that under the Law, the tenancy was from year to year, hence, the same was terminatable by giving six months notice expiring with the end of year of tenancy in the terms of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act (for short “the T.P.Act”). It is also stated that in terms of mandate of Section 106 of T.P. Act, the petitioner got a legal notice which was issued on 24.4.2008 to 1st respondent calling upon it to vacate the schedule property. Even though received notice, the 1st respondent did not vacate and continue to hold the property in its possession illegally. It is stated that after waiting for long time after termination of tenancy the petitioner filed a suit on 1.10.2015 thus the petitioner complied with mandatory requirements of Section 106 of T.P. Act before he filed suit. The 1st respondent admitted in his written statement about receipt of legal notice dated 24.4.2008 sent by the petitioner in compliance of Section 106 of T.P. Act terminating the tenancy by giving six months’ notice and 1st respondent did not dispute the validity of notice under Section 106 of T.P. Act on any ground.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that the petitioner/plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are owners of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac 0.92 cents and Ac 1.47 cents in NTS/142, Block No. 6, Ward No. 2, Patamatalanka, Vijayawada. Both the plots are distinct and separate in their identity and contiguous. The petitioner/plaintiff and 2nd defendant have executed an unregistered sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant/1st respondent for a period of 33 years and rent fixed was at Rs.725/-. He further submits that the 1st defendant got issued notices to the petitioner/plaintiff and 2nd defendant exercising its option to extend the lease under clause No. 13 of the aforesaid unregistered lease agreement dated 1.5.1975 for a further period of 33 years. He further submits that both the petitioner and 2nd defendant gave reply notice repudiated the said option of lease exercised by the 1st defendant by repudiating and refusing to accept the proposal of the 1st defendant for extension of lease, terminated its tenancy and directed to vacate the suit schedule property by giving six months’ notice. The period expired by October 2008. Learned counsel further contended that the trial Court ought to have seen that there should be controversial issues between the parties to the suit for the court to take up trial and in the absence of the same, the court can dispense with trial and ought to have decreed the suit and the trial Court ought to have seen that the earlier suit filed by the 1st defendant claiming specific performance on the basis of reneweal clause in the unregistered lease deed was dismissed and the petitioner cannot seek protection under Section 53 A of the T.P Act. Hence, the revision petition is filed.

5. In support of his contention, l