The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for unambiguous admission for a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, the unconstitutionality of the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2012, and the determination of triable issues regarding stamp duty and registration requirements.

M.L. Mehta, J.

1. The above listed three applications are being disposed by this order. The plaintiff filed

I.A. 5885/2013 Under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC praying for a decree against the defendant in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (e) of the plaint. The defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint under clauses (b) and (c) of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stating that the suit is grossly undervalued and the requisite court fees has not been paid as per Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2012. Another application being I.A. 1992/2012 is filed by the defendant under Sections 33, 35 and 38 of Indian Stamp Act read with Section 49 of Registration Act, 1908 stating that lease agreement which is relied upon by the plaintiff is unregistered and not properly stamped and thus could not be read in evidence and was liable to be impounded.

2. The respective applications are contested by the parties. I.A. 5885/2013 (application on behalf of plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC)

3. So far as the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the plaintiff is concerned, the defendant states, and rightly so, that there is no unambiguous and categoric admission made by her in the written statement. It is stated that the defendant has set up her case of counter claim of specific performance on the premise that the defendant had agreed to purchase the suit premises from the plaintiff. In addition to this plea that is sought to be set up by the defendant, the defendant has also denied the relationship of licenser and licensee. It is her case that initially a license deed dated 14th December 1998 was executed, but the defendant was given the right to raise construction over and above the premises for the purpose of residence and running a restaurant, and this was renewed from time to time vide unregistered unstamped deeds, which as per law do not create relationship of lessor and lessee in view of provisions contained in Sections 33, 35 and 38 of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 107 of Transfer of Property Act read with Section 17 of Registration Act. The defendant avers that during the tenure of license, she constructed super structure, with her own funds and resources, with the due authority of the plaintiff, at a cost more than Rs.50.00 lakhs and as such this license has become irrevocable as per Section 60 of Indian Easement Act. In view of all these pleas taken by the defendant and her having filed a counter claim against the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the defendant had made unambiguous and unconditional and categoric admissions entitling the plaintiff to a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The defendant has raised certain triable issues which could not be adjudicated without trial.

4. Dealing with the scope of the provisions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, the Supreme Court in the case of Uttam Singh Duggal & CO. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2000 (7) SCC 120 held thus:

“Where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled. We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this Rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain a speedy judgment. Where the other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed.”

5. In the case Delhi Jal Board Vs. Surendra P. Malik 2003 111 AD Delhi 419, the Division Bench of this Court, dealing with the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC held thus:

“The test, therefore, is (i) whether admissions of fact arise in the suit, (ii) whether such admissions are plain, unambiguous and unequivocal, (iii) whether the defense set up is such that it