IMPORTANT POINT
A clear and unambiguous admission by a party can justify a summary judgment under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral) - The instant regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC"), has been filed on behalf of appellant seeking the following reliefs:

"In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may please allow the appeal and set aside the Order/decree dated 30.03.2022 passed by learned Trial Court of Shri Pawan Singh Rajawat, ADJ, (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 268/2017 titled as Virender Kumar Jain vs. Kiran against the appellant/defendant in the interest of justice

Any other order or direction as this Hon'ble court deems fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the appellant in the interest of justice."

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the instant appeal are as follows-

a. The respondent filed civil suit bearing no. 268/2017 seeking possession, permanent and mandatory injunction against the appellant before the learned Trial Court. The appellant filed her written statement stating therein that she has paid Rs.2,50,000/- in cash as security to Mr. Monu Jain, attorney of the respondent and that she is regularly paying rent of Rs.500/- per month.

b. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, seeking decree of possession on the ground that the appellant, i.e., the defendant therein, unequivocally acceded to being a tenant of the respondent in her written statement as well as in the legal notice dated 30th December, 2016.

c. Pursuant to above, the appellant filed a reply to the aforesaid application and the learned Trial Court passed an order dated 30th March, 2022, thereby, allowing the application filed under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, and held that the respondent is entitled to a decree of possession of the suit property. It further held that other reliefs of injunctions and arrears of rent and mesne profit will require evidence from both the parties.

d. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30th March, 2022 the appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that she is residing in the suit property by paying rent of Rs.500/- per month and no rent agreement was executed between the parties. The appellant had paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as security to the respondent, i.e., the plaintiff before the learned Court below but no receipt was given.

4. It is further submitted that there is nothing as such in the pleadings filed by the appellant before the learned Court below, which can be even remotely termed as admission or evasive denial, or not specific denial.

5. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the provision of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC in right prospective as per which the admission in the pleadings must be made by the defendant in an unequivocal, unambiguous manner and the admission should not be vague or equivocal.

6. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court must bear in mind that while passing the decree/judgment based on an admission, it is the document which has to be read as whole and the Court should not read out one or two sentences, in order to treat the same as an admission.

7. It is contended that the learned Trial Court committed error and illegality in passing the impugned order and only picked one word which stated that the defendant was inducted as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.5000/- via rent agreement dated 17th November, 2017 but no such agreement was on court record of the learned Court below and the appellant never admitted that she was paying rent of Rs.5000/- per month to the respondent. The appellant in her written statement as well as reply to the legal notice dated 30th December, 2016 has stated that she was paying rent of Rs.500/- per month to the plaintiff regularly but no rent receipt was issued by the plaintiff or his attorney despite repeated requests. Hence, the impugned o