JUDGMENT :

(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) :

1. This is an application for judgment on admission. The suit is filed for eviction and mesne profits. The suit premises comprises of the ground floor measuring about 374 sq.ft. (including a mezzanine floor) situated at Premises no.42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700020 (“the suit premises”).

2. By a lease agreement executed in January, 2016 by and between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1, the defendant no.1 was inducted as a monthly lessee at a lease rent of Rs.60,000/-(subsequently enhanced to Rs.1,61,000/-). The suit premises is being used by the defendant no.1 for commercial purposes. The defendant no.1 is running a hair salon from the suit premises. Admittedly, the lease agreement is unregistered and insufficiently stamped.

3. It is alleged that, since December 2019, the defendant no.1 stopped paying any rentals in respect of the suit premises. By a notice dated 24 September, 2020 issued under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the plaintiff sought for eviction of the defendant no.1. Significantly, the defendant no.1 had also instituted a prior suit before the City Civil Court at Calcutta being Title Suit No.571 of 2020 against the plaintiff inter alia praying for a declaration and perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff from dispossessing the defendant no.1 without following the due process of law and further restraining the plaintiff from taking any steps to disconnect the electricity or the water supply at the suit premises. The earlier suit has since been transferred before this Court in its Ordinary Civil Jurisdiction (renumbered as EOS No.1 of 2021). In this background, the plaintiff seeks eviction of the defendant no.1 from the suit premises and rental arrears of Rs.17,11,500/-for the period December, 2019 to October, 2020 and for mesne profits in this suit.

4. The plaintiff has filed this application on the ground that the defendant no.1 has expressly admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant in the pleadings filed in the earlier suit. It is also admitted in the plaint filed in EOS No 1 of 2021 that the quantum of rent of the suit premises was enhanced to Rs.1,61,000/-per month. Such admissions are to be found at paragraphs 2 and 4 of the plaint filed in EOS No 1 of 2021. The defendant no.1 has also not denied receipt of the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. There is also a monetary claim for admitted outstanding lease rentals payable since December, 2019. These facts are not disputed by the defendant no.1. In this background, the plaintiff seeks a decree for judgment upon admission on the basis of the aforesaid admissions.

5. On behalf of the defendant no.1, it is contended that there is no admission which the plaintiff can rely on for the purposes of getting a decree at this stage of the proceeding. It is further alleged that in view of the earlier suit and the injunction restraining the plaintiff from taking any steps for eviction except without due process of law, this application is not maintainable. It is also contended that the notice dated 24 September, 2020 is invalid and does not comply with clauses 27 and 29(1) of the lease agreement which provides for a longer duration of notice. It is contended that there was an oral settlement between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1, wherein it was admitted that no rent or maintenance would be paid by the defendant no.1 from January, 2020 to October, 2020. On the aspect of maintainability, it is contended that this suit is not maintainable before the Commercial Division of this Court in view of the decision rendered in Deepak Polymers Private Limited Versus Anchor Investments Private Limited (Unreported decision of the High Court at Calcutta dated 24 June, 2021 in CO No.759 of 2021). In this background, it is contended that no order can be passed in this application.

6. Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides as follows:

6. Judgment on adm