The main legal point established in the judgment is that a clear and categorical admission is required for the court to decree a suit without trial under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, especially in the context of a landlord-tenant dispute.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 11962/2022 (delay of 10 days in filing the petition)

1. Present application has been preferred seeking condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the revision petition.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

3. Delay of 10 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

4. Application stands disposed of.

C.R.P. 28/2022, CM APPL. 11960/2022 (direction)

5. Present revision petition has been filed laying a challenge to the impugned order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the Trial Court whereby an application filed by the Petitioner herein under Order XII Rule 6 CPC has been dismissed. Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff before the Trial Court and Respondent is the sole Defendant and the parties are hereinafter referred to by their litigating status before the Trial Court.

6. Facts being in a narrow compass for the purpose of adjudicating this revision petition and as averred in the petition are that Plaintiff's mother late Smt. Bhagwati Devi was the absolute owner of built-up property bearing No. B-7/C-58, ad-measuring 220 Sq. Yards in Khasra No. 1422, now bearing the new No. B-7/C-58, Sharda Puri, New Delhi-15 (hereinafter referred to as the `suit property'). The suit property is stated to have been purchased in 1965 through a duly executed Sale Deed dated 19.08.1965. Mother of the Plaintiff expired leaving behind her husband, two daughters i.e. Plaintiff and Ms. Indira Rani Singh as her legal heirs.

7. It is the case of the Plaintiff that as per the law of succession, Plaintiff and her sister as well as their father became joint owners of the suit property. Plaintiff and her sister usually live in U.S.A. and the entire property was in occupation of their father. Son of the brother of Plaintiff's father namely Sh. Krishan was permitted to live in the suit property as a licensee out of love and affection since Plaintiff's father was old and was living alone and was becoming more and more dependent. Plaintiff avers that her father at the instance of her cousin raised unauthorized construction in the property for which a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction was filed and is pending in another Court. Father of the Plaintiff in connivance with her cousin also constructed a shop on the ground floor, which is under occupation of the Defendant and as learnt by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is paying a monthly rent of Rs.50,000/- but it is unknown as to who is the recipient of the rent.

8. It is averred that Plaintiff has repeatedly objected to the occupation of the premises by the Defendant and also sent a legal notice for vacation on 22.11.2019. When the efforts of the Plaintiff and her sister to have the ground floor vacated failed, present suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant and others acting on his behalf from creating third party rights in the shop on the ground floor as also seeking decree for recovery of possession directing the Defendant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property.

9. Upon service of summons, written statement was filed by the Defendant and thereafter Plaintiff filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC predicated on an alleged admission of the Defendant that he is a tenant of the father of the Plaintiff i.e. late Sh. Fateh Singh Chauhan and is paying a rent of Rs.30,000/- p.m. Reply was filed by the Defendant to the said application opposing the grant of decree on alleged admissions. Trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that there is no unequivocal or categorical admission on part of the Defendant attorning the Plaintiff as owner/landlord of the suit premises inasmuch as it is the stand of the Defendant in the written statement that after the death of Sh. Fateh Singh Chauhan, one Sh. Krishan Chauhan is the landlord.

10. Assailing the impugned order, counsel for the Plaintiff contends that Trial Court has erred in dismissing the application under Order XII Rule 6