VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 ) THE plaint contains several prayers, inter alia, for the passing of a decree ofpossession of the property in suit. This prayer is available to the Plaintiff if the monthlyrent of the suit premises is in excess of Rs. 3500. 00. and if the tenancy has been validlyterminated. The allegations in the plaint are that the period of lease had expired on31. 8. 1995 but that Defendant No. 2 continued to occupy the premises even thereafter. Hence the tenancy of the Defendants had been terminated vide notice dated 2. 3. 1998,the receipt of which is admitted by the Defendants. In para 8 of the its Writtenstatement the Defendants have pleaded inter alia, as follows:

"that the contents of para No. 8 of the plaint are wrong and denied. It iswrong that tenancy was terminated or no reply to the notice dated 2/03/1998 was given by the defendants. It is submitted that a detailed reply to thesaid notice was, duly sent by the defendant through speed post dated23. 4. 1998.-That even otherwise it is respectfully submitted that notices issued by theplaintiff stand waived by express and also impleaded consent of plaintiffno. 1. The plaintiff renewed the lease and agreed that the defendant cancontinue to use the leased premises for further period w. e. f. August 1997. Further even after, issued of the said notice the plaintiff has accepted therentals from the defendant including Pay Order No. 026649 drawn on HDFCBank Ltd. for Rs. 60. 000. 00 towards the rent up to 30/06/1998. Having thusaccepted the rent the plaintiff has waived the rent the plaintiff has waived thenotice. Hence the present suit is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed".

( 2 ) WITH regard to the prayer for a decree of possession, on a holistic reading of thewritten Statement, it would be fair to hold the Defendant had made an admission withregard io the receipt of notice as well as its legality. Two defences have been putforward, (a) that the lease had been renewed and (b) that the notice had beenwaived. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff has vehemently and vociferously argued theprayer for the passing of a decree of possession under Order XII, Rule 6 ismisconceived because no admissions have been made which would warrant orjustify the grant of this relief. He has submitted that a detailed denial of thesestatements has not been made by the Plaintiff in its Replication. On this failure,sections 17 and 31 of the Evidence Act are attracted and this being so a trial isnecessary. It is his submission that the estoppel which has come into effect could onlybe dispelled by the Plaintiff leading and adducing evidence to controvert the standadopted by the Defendant. Learned counsel further argues that the details furnishedby the Plaintiff in its Rejoinder to the Defendant s Reply cannot be taken intoconsideration since these details should have been incorporated in the Replicationitself. Learned counsel further submits that a discretion is vested in the Court underorder X l l Rule 6 and it is not an automatic progression that a Decree will follow evenwhere admission have been made. Order XII Rule 6 reads as under :-

"6. Judgment on admission.- (1) Where admissions of fact have been madeeither in the. pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court mayat any stage of the suit, either on the application of any part or of its ownmotion and without waiting for the determination of any other questionbetween the parties, make such order or given such judgment as it may thinkfit, having regard to such admissions. (2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced underjsub-rule (1) a decree shall bedrawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the dateon which the judgment was pronounced. (emphasis supplied)

( 3 ) THESE provisions make it abundantly clear that if admission of facts have beenmade, the Court can pass such orders and give such judgment as it may think fit. having regard to the admissions. In granting the decree for possession what isexpected

Click Here to Read the rest of this document