The main legal point established in the judgment is that a decree of possession can be granted based on admissions made by the respondents, and the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC for passing a decree on admissions should be allowed in such cases.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties.

(2) The petitioner i.e. original plaintiff is aggrieved by order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Court of additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur, whereby application at Exhibit 93, moved by the petitioner under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for passing decree on admission, has been rejected.

(3) The petitioner filed suit for ejectment, possession, damages and mesne profits against the respondents claiming that it is entitled for a decree and that the respondents ought to deliver possession of the suit property to the petitioner. The suit is based on a registered indenture of lease dated 22.07.2005. The same was executed for the period of five years from 01.08.2005 to 31.07.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that the said indenture of lease clearly stated that while it was executed for the period of five years, it could be renewed for further two periods of five years each. It was submitted that when the period of first five years under the said document was to expire, the respondents had proposed a fresh lease but, the same did not fructify into a fresh lease for the reason that the respondents did not agree for 20% increase in the rent.

(4) In response, the petitioner had given a counter offer, which was not accepted by the respondents and they insisted upon the same terms as were applicable to the first period of five years of the lease. as a result, the lease was not executed afresh and the respondents continued in the said premises.

(5) according to the petitioner, when it was found that despite exchange of number of communications between the parties, the respondents were not proceeding in the matter and they continued to occupy the said premises, the petitioner gave notice on 27.09.2014 to the respondents under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property act, 1882, which was received by the respondents on 29.09.2014. On this basis, the petitioner claimed that the occupation of the premises by the respondents from 01.11.2014 was rendered illegal and accordingly, on 12.01.2015, the petitioner filed the aforesaid suit.

(6) The petitioner further claims that in the written statement filed in the aforesaid suit, the respondents admitted that the indenture of lease dated 22.07.2005, was for the period of five years between 01.08.2005 and 31.07.2010. The petitioner further claimed that when the contents of the said indenture of lease dated 22.07.2005 were admitted by the respondents, it was evident that even if two further renewals of five years each were to be taken into consideration, the maximum period under the said document stood expired on 31.07.2020. In fact, the petitioner claimed that the respondent No.2 itself by letter dated 08.12.2011, in response to a communication sent by the petitioner, specifically conceded that the date of expiry of the lease upon maximum two renewals of five years each was 31.07.2020.

(7) On this basis, after 31.07.2020 i.e. on 27.02.2021, the petitioner moved the aforesaid application at Exhibit-93 under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC for passing decree on admissions given by the respondents. It was stated that in view of the pleadings in the written statement and as per letter on record dated 08.12.2011, even as per the respondents the period of lease expired on 31.07.2020 and therefore, a decree of possession ought to be passed in favour of the petitioner. The said application was opposed by the respondents and it was submitted that the pleadings on record did not amount to admission as claimed by the petitioner.

(8) By the impugned order dated 06.08.2021, the Small Cause Court rejected the application by observing that the written statement was filed in the year 2015 itself and that the application moved much later could not be considered favourably. It was further held that the documents on record and the alleged admissio