Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. The respondent does not dispute that the appellant is the owner of a plot of land bearing Municipal No.E-39A, East of Kailash, New Delhi – 110065. Whereas appellant claims that the respondent No.1, who is appellant’s nephew, was given permissive possession by her to reside in a portion of the building constructed on the plot shown in red colour in the plan annexed to the plaint and having revoked the permission she is entitled to a decree for possession and mesne profits; the claim of respondent No.1 is that under an oral permission granted by the appellant, from his own funds, he constructed the portion of the building which is in his occupation; possession whereof is sought and that the oral permission was with the understanding that the respondent No.1 would be the ultimate owner thereof.

2. With these pleadings of the parties, appellant filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for a decree on admission and the case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that having admitted appellant’s ownership and that the oral permission granted to occupy the suit property was withdrawn by the appellant, the respondent No.1 and his wife and son (impleaded as defendants No.2 and 3 in suit) were liable to be ejected forthwith. A decree on admission was prayed for.

3. With reference to Section 60(b) of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 and the law declared by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as (1987) 2 SCC 555 Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by LRs Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors. the learned Single Judge has held that no decree on admission could be passed for the reason the triable issue would be whether pursuant to a license granted by the appellant the respondent No.1 constructed the suit property from his own funds and thus the license was irrevocable.

4. Now, whether the permission to occupy and construct, in the facts of the instant pleadings would be labelled as a permissive act of the appellant or an oral license, would be a matter of quibbling with words for the reason if ultimately the defence succeeds and it is established that pursuant to an oral understanding the respondent No.1 was permitted by the appellant to construct the suit property and reside therein as owner thereof, it would be highly doubtful whether the appellant would obtain a decree. But we speak no further on the legal position because this aspect has not been debated fully before us today and would need a debate by applying the law considering the evidence led by the parties after trial.

5. Today, learned counsel for the appellant has taken a slightly different route by urging that the plea by respondent No.1 of having constructed the building, possession whereof is sought by the appellant, is an illusory pleading. It is vague and no triable issue would arise as per learned senior counsel for the appellant the pleading is unsupported by any document.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent refutes and urges that as noted by the learned Single Judge documents have been filed by respondent No.1 to justify the defence.

7. In rejoinder, learned senior counsel for the appellant urges that the appellant is in possession of documents to show that such portions of the building constructed on the plot of land bearing Municipal No.E-39A, East of Kailash, New Delhi – 110069 in respect whereof decree for possession is prayed for were in existence much prior to the admitted date when the first respondent and his family took possession.

8. Now, when the learned Single Judge decided the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure the stage of the parties filing documents and admission/denial had not reached.

9. It being trite that an admission could be contained even in a document admitted by the opposite party and need not necessarily be in the pleadings, learned senior counsel for the appellant concedes that the appellant has jumped the gun by invoking Order 12 Rule 6 of