IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KRISHNA RAO, J.
Ashis Biswas - Plaintiff
Versus
Punjab National Bank - Defendant
IA No. GA 1 of 2019, (Old No. GA 2846 of 2019) In CS 234 of 2019
Decided On : 09-05-2024
Judgment - Lease Agreement - Order 12, Rule 6, CPC - The court interpreted the provisions of Order 12, Rule 6 of the CPC, emphasizing the necessity of clear and unequivocal admissions for passing a judgment on admission, which influenced the dismissal of the plaintiff's application.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a decree for arrears of rent from the defendant, who was a tenant under a lease agreement. The plaintiff claimed the defendant admitted the arrears, while the defendant contested the claim, citing lack of clear admission and other defenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant did not make an unequivocal admission regarding the arrears of rent, and thus, the application for judgment upon admission was not sustainable. The issues of limitation and jurisdiction were also deemed triable matters.
Issues: Whether the defendant made a clear and unequivocal admission of the arrears of rent, and whether the court could pass a judgment on admission under Order 12, Rule 6 of the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for a judgment on admission to be granted, the admission must be clear, unequivocal, and positive. The absence of such an admission precluded the court from exercising its discretion under Order 12, Rule 6.
Result: The application G.A. No. 1 of 2019 is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Krishna Rao, J.) :
1. The plaintiff has filed the present application being G.A. No. 1 of 2019 (Old No. GA 2846 of 2019) in C.S. No. 234 of 2019 praying for judgment and decree upon admission.
2. The plaintiff has initiated the suit against the defendant praying for following decree:
b) Interim interest and interest on Judgment @18% p.a. till realization;
c) Judgment upon admission;
d) Receiver;
e) Injunction;
f) Attachment upon the Judgment;
g) Costs;
h) Such further and/or other reliefs.”
3. The father of the plaintiff, Parimal Biswas, since deceased was the sole and absolute owner of the building situated at premises No.4A, Ekdalia Place, Kolkata – 700019. The father of the plaintiff during his life time had executed a Will and Testament on 20th May, 2003, appointing the plaintiff and his younger brother as joint executors of his last Will and Testament. The plaintiff has obtained probate of the said last Will and became the sole and absolute owner of the entire Ground Floor together with 50% share of the garage and the entire First Floor together with common staircases, common entrance, pump room and the common terrace together with common shares in three rooms and one dining room on the terrace, together with one room on the back portion of the building at the premises No.4A, Ekdalia Place, Kolkata – 700019.
4. The defendant became a tenant of the entire ground floor measuring about 2375 Sq. Ft. and the entire mezzanine Floor and the First Floor of the building measuring about 1455 Sq. Ft. together with a room to be used as ATM room on the eastern side of premises together with one generation room measuring about 162 Sq. Ft. in the Ground Floor (West Side) of the building by virtue of a Lease Agreement under the father of the plaintiff, which came to an end on 31st March, 2014.
5. By a letter dated 17th June, 2015, the defendant had offered to take on lease the total area of 3505 Sq. Ft. (Ground Floor area about 2300 Sq. Ft. and subsequent additional space includes Mezzanine Floor to stair case from First Floor and entire area of First Floor area about 1205 Sq. Ft.). The terms and conditions agreed between the parties are mentioned hereinbelow:
(ii) Monthly rent of Rs.1,40,200/-was agreed between the parties, inclusive of all rates and taxes, service charges and other outgoings with effect from 1st April, 2014 but exclusive of commercial surcharge, KMC tax and 50% of future incremental portion of KMC Tax on occupied portion of Defendant.
(iii) The defendant has further agreed to pay 50% of the future incremental portion of KMC Tax over (existing assessment).
(iv) The defendant would also bear commercial surcharge, KMC Water Tax, as will be applicable proportionately for the occupied portion.
(v) The review of the rent to be made after 3 years from 1st April, 2014 subject to enhancement of rent, if any, not exceeding 15% over the prevailing rent.
(vi) The rent for the ATM will be Rs.5,000/-per month w.e.f. June, 2015.
6. The defendant by a letter dated 5th October, 2015, had decided to surrender the First Floor of the building and relocate its branch on the ground floor under the revised terms and conditions which was duly accepted by the plaintiff on 6th October, 2015 and on 7th October, 2015, the defendant duly performed its reciprocal promise under the contract and paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-towards arears of rent.
7. By a letter dated 31st July, 2017, the defendant requested the plaintiff to take possession of the First Floor of the building and it also contemplates that the defendant will not be in a position to pay the rent to the plaintiff for the said First Floor with effect from 1st May, 2017.
8. The Deed of Lease was formally entered i
Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Ltd. vs. United Bank of India and Others
Balraj Taneja and Another -vs-Sunil Madan and Another
Judgment on admissions may be granted under Order XII Rule 6 when the Defendant accepts the tenancy and terms of rent, despite challenges to ownership.
If tenants fail to vacate said premises on expiry of tenancy period, tenants shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per day towards penalty alongwith monthly rent to landladies.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an unregistered lease deed for a period not exceeding 11 months is admissible in evidence, and a tenant is estopped from challenging the title....
Defendant failed to prove monthly rent of Rs.500 against claimed Rs.7,320, leading to dismissal of possession appeal and counter-claim for payment refunds.
A tenant's admission of rent agreement and arrears can justify eviction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, making registration irrelevant for short-term leases.
The tenant's failure to pay rent and timely file for standard rent fixation leads to eviction under the Bombay Rent Act, despite claims of payment to co-owners.
The court affirmed that a tenant's agreement to revised rent constitutes acknowledgment of arrears, and failure to provide evidence for a full settlement negates defenses regarding non-payment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear, unambiguous, and unconditional admissions to exercise the discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, and the parameters for ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.