The importance of clear and unequivocal admissions in pleadings and documents, and the treatment of vague and bald denials as admissions under Order VIII Rule 5 CPC.

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the order dated 05.11.2016 passed by the learned trial court, allowing an application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and decreeing the suit for possession in respect of Flat No.16, situated in Plot No.100, Sant Nirankari Colony, Delhi.

2. The case of the respondent/plaintiff as set up before the trial court is that it is a registered Society set up to impart and spread the message of the humanity and universal brotherhood of mankind. The appellant/defendant had offered himself as a “Sewadar” in the true traditions of “Guru & Shisheya” and to be part of spiritual movement of the respondent/plaintiff. The said request was acceded to and the appellant/defendant was inducted by the respondent/plaintiff as a “Sewadar”. The respondent/plaintiff started paying a maintenance amount to the appellant/defendant and permitted him to occupy the subject premises along with his family, without any consideration. In view of the licence granted to the appellant/defendant to occupy the said premises on a non-payment, he had submitted a Declaration-cum-Undertaking dated 26.5.2010, stating inter alia that the appellant/defendant had permitted him and his family members to use and occupy the said premises for his residence with effect from 26.5.2010; that the said premises was given to him without any consideration; that he would not permit any third party to use the said premises for any purpose; that he shall not undertake any additions/alterations therein; that he and his family shall not stake any claim in respect of the said premises and abide by all the rules and regulations of the respondent/plaintiff, as may be issued from time to time.

3. The penultimate para of the aforesaid Declaration-cum-Undertaking is material and reads as below:-

“7. That I hereby declare and undertake to vacate and surrender the possession of the said premises peacefully to the Mandal, alongwith to the Mandal, alongwith its fixture and other articles, without any objection or hindrance, as and when directed by the Mandal. I further declare that I personally as well as all my family members, heirs/dependants fully undertake that I am allowed by the Mandal, to occupy the above said portions/premise only on accounts of missionary activities entrusted to me. My heirs/dependants/successors etc. will hand over the peaceful possession of the premise to the Mandal immediately after my demise or as and when directed by the Mandal to do so.”

4. The respondent/plaintiff claims that the appellant/defendant started indulging in dereliction of duty, disobeyed the orders and committed serious omissions and commissions as a “Sewadar”. As a result, he was called in the meeting of the Executive Committee of the respondent/plaintiff on 07.7.2015 and when confronted with his misdemeanour and acts of omissions and commissions, he admitted to his conduct and abandoned the “sewa” of the respondent/plaintiff from 07.7.2015 itself. Though, the appellant abandoned the “sewa”, he continued to occupy the subject premises. The respondent/plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 09.7.2015 to the appellant/defendant seeking vacant, peaceful possession of the suit premises, but he failed to comply. Instead, the appellant/defendant dispatched a reply dated 24.7.2015 to the respondent/plaintiff, contesting their claim. On his refusal to vacate the suit premises, the aforesaid suit for possession, damages, etc., was filed by the respondent/plaintiff in July 2015.

5. Summons in the suit were served on the appellant/defendant who filed his written statement in November, 2015. After the pleadings were completed in the suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC stating inter alia that the appellant/defendant had failed to specifically deny the pleas taken by it that he was occupying the suit premises as a licensee, in his capacity as a “Sewadar” and in view of the vague pleas taken by h