The power under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right; clear admissions are necessary for judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order dated February 5, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1^st Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 387 of 2016 heard analogously with Title Suit No. 104 of 2020.

2. By the order impugned, the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner stood rejected.

3. The case made out by the petitioner in the plaint of Title Suit No. 387 of 2016 is summarized hereunder as follows:

The opposite party was inducted as a licencee in respect of a covered area for running a restaurant at a licence fee of Rs. 25,000/- per month payable according to English Calendar month. The defendant did not pay licence fee on and from the month of February 2015 and a certain sum of money was stated to be due and payable by the opposite party to the petitioner. Petitioner through her learned advocate issued a notice to quit. Opposite party replied to the said notice. Petitioner filed the suit for eviction since the opposite party failed and neglected to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the petitioner.

4. The opposite party is contesting the Title Suit No. 387 of 2016 by filing a written statement denying the material allegations contained therein. It has been specifically stated in the written statement that the opposite party was inducted as a monthly premises tenant in respect of the suit property at a monthly rent of Rs. 2000/-which was subsequently increased to Rs. 4000/-. The opposite party denied that he was inducted as a licensee in respect of the suit property at a licence fee of Rs. 25,000/- per month.

5. The opposite party filed a Title Suit No. 722 of 2016 praying for a decree of declaration that the opposite party is a bonafide tenant under the petitioner and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from causing any disturbance to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the opposite party in the suit property. The said suit which was initially filed before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 3^rd Court at Howrah was transferred to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1^st Court at Howrah and renumbered as Title Suit No. 104 of 2020.

6. Petitioner filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for passing a judgment on admission. In the said application, it has been stated that from the hand notebook/ rent collection book produced by the opposite party it is evident that the opposite party paid rent exceeding Rs. 10,000/- per month to the petitioner on account of his occupation in the suit premises and such occupation can never be governed by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 as the premises is situated within the limits of Howrah Municipal Corporation and used for non-residential purposes.

7. The application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by such order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

8. Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the monthly payments made by the opposite party on account of maintenance charges and electricity charges are components of rent. He contended that from the hand notebook/ rent collection book it is evident that the opposite party is paying a sum of Rs. 19, 000/- per month which includes rent, maintenance and electricity charges. He submitted t