Judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 is discretionary and requires clear, unambiguous admissions; further interpretation of lease terms may be necessary.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Pai, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant and Ms. Sonal, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

2. By the present Civil Revision Application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), the Applicant i.e. Original Plaintiff is challenging the legality and validity of the Order dated 4th May 2022 passed by the learned Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai in Appeal No.71 of 2021 (“impugned Order”).

3. By the impugned Order dated 4th May 2022, the Appellate Court set aside the Order dated 12th March 2020 passed below Exhibit – 19 in T. E. & R. Suit No.37 of 2018. By the said Order dated 12th March 2020, the learned Trial Court allowed the said Application filed under Order XII Rule 6 and Section 151 of the CPC seeking judgment on admission. The learned Appellate Court by the impugned Order has set aside the judgment on admission passed by the learned Trial Court.

4. It is the submission of Mr. Pai, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant that the Indenture of Lease has been determined on and from 5th June 2013 as the Respondent has committed breach in payment of rent from November 2010 to May 2012. Learned Senior Counsel invited attention of this Court to Clause (1) of the Indenture of Lease dated 3rd March 1978. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that as there is default in payment of rent, from November 2010 to May 2012 i.e. more than 18 months, as contemplated under Clause (1) of the lease deed and as the default is admitted in the Reply dated 24th December 2013, the suit is required to be decreed in view of the admission. Learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the case of the Applicant is covered by Clause (b) of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TP Act”), which contemplates that if time is limited conditionally on the happening of such event, a lease of immoveable property determines. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Karam Kapahi v. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust, (2010) 4 SCC 753 He therefore submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly passed the decree on admission which has been erroneously set aside by the learned Appellate Court.

5. On the other hand, it is the submission of Ms. Sonal, learned Counsel for the Respondent that this case is covered by Sub-Clause (g) of Section 111 of the TP Act and the determination of lease is by forfeiture. She relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in In re Srinath Zamindary (In Liqdn.), 1951 SCC OnLine Cal 67 : AIR 1952 Cal 207 and also the decision of the Orissa High Court in Raja Sri Krishna Chandra Manasingh Harichandan Mardaraj v. M/s. National Chemical & Salt Works Ltd., (India), Calcutta, AIR 1957 ORISSA 35. She submitted that decree on admission cannot be granted in the facts and circumstances and in view of the law laid down by Calcutta High Court and Orissa High Court.

6. Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to set out Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. The same reads as follows :-

“ORDER XII

ADMISSIONS

...

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 upon in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.”

(Emphasis added)

Thus, what is contemplated under Order XII Ru