The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to grant a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC based on clear admissions in the pleadings and reply notice, especially when there is a need for a speedy judgment and when the parties are facing hardship due to protracted litigation.

JUDGMENT :

K.S. Mudagal, J.

1. Aggrieved by the rejection of their application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the plaintiffs have preferred this petition.

2. Pending this petition, the sole plaintiff/ petitioner died. On her death her son Prashanth who was initially arrayed as respondent No. 3 in the case was transposed as petitioner No. 2. Her other legal representatives were brought on record as petitioner Nos.1(a) to 1(c).

3. The petitioner Indravathi's husband was the owner of residential bungalow consisting of six bedrooms constructed on site No. 391 in block No. III in Koramangala, Bengaluru. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 entered into lease agreement with respondent No. 1 in respect of the suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.1,30,000.00. The petitioners claimed that the said rent agreement was for a period of 11 months, which was extendable for another 11 months and thereafter, at the option of the petitioners.

4. Petitioner No. 1 got issued notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 as per Annexure-D dated 05 07.2016, terminating the tenancy and calling upon them to handover the possession of the property. They also claimed that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are making a false claim of perpetual lease and threatening the petitioner and the care taker of the house by implicating them in false criminal cases. She also called upon respondent Nos.1 and 2 to vacate and handover of the possession of the property on or before 31/7/2016.

5. To the said notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 got issued reply as per Annexure-E dtd. 18/7/2016. They claimed that the lease agreement dtd. 10/9/2014 was only a formal document and there was no term in the said agreement for termination of the tenancy. In other words they claimed that the lease was perpetual one. In the reply notice, they did not dispute the rate of rent. They also contended that they had taken the house on rent with an understanding that they shall remain in occupation of the premises till they complete the construction of their house, which is undertaken in a nearby site and that was oral agreement between them and the petitioner.

6. After receiving such reply, petitioner No. 1 filed O.S.No. 5863/2016 against defendant Nos.1 and 2. Her son was impleaded as defendant No. 3 on the ground that he was residing abroad and not able to join her in filing the suit. In the suit, they sought the relief of ejectment of defendant Nos.1 and 2, vacant possession of the suit property and mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2,50,000.00 per month from 1/8/2016 till the date of delivery of possession with interest at 18% per annum. She claimed that after service of termination notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not paid the rent.

7. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement admitted their possession of the premises as tenants. But claimed that the suit was not maintainable without impleading the other co-owners i.e., defendant No. 3 as plaintiff and other children of Srinivasan the original owner. They also again set up the same ground of oral agreement of perpetual lease and petitioners causing nuisance to them by inducting one Marimuttu as the caretaker in the suit premises. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 admitted the service of notice and their reply to the same.

8. On the basis of such pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the tenancy is duly terminated?

2. Whether the plaintiffs entitled for mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2,50,000.00 p.m?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought?

4. What order or decree?"

9. Before the Trial Court, petitioner No. 1 filed I.A.No. 5 as per Annexure-F under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC claiming decree for possession of the schedule property on the basis of the admissions of defendant Nos.1 and 2. She claimed that in the written statement and the reply notice, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have admitted the relationship of the landlord and tenant and termination of the tenancy, therefore, the matter calls for decree with respe