A decree on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 is not justified where no clear admission exists, especially when the validity of the tenancy agreement is contested.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges an order dated 29th October 2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge in CS 2020/2018, (Vijay Kumar Jain v. Suresh Kumar Jain), whereby an application, by the petitioner as the plaintiff in the suit, under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, has been dismissed.

2. According to the case set up by the petitioner in the plaint, the property at 4754, Ahata Kidara, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi 110006 ("the tenanted premises") owned by the petitioner, was let out to the respondent, under a tenancy agreement dated 31st August 2017 for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 1st September 2017 at a rent of Rs.7,500/- per month excluding electricity and water charges.

3. Alleging that the respondent had defaulted in payment of rent to the petitioner since October 2017, which resulted in the petitioner terminating the tenancy vide a legal notice dated 10th May 2018, and further alleging that, despite having been called upon in that regard, the respondent did not vacate the tenanted premises, the petitioner filed CS 202/2018, seeking a decree of possession in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent as well as a decree for arrears of rent and damages, apart from costs.

4. The defendant, in his written statement, filed by way of response to the suit, disputed the assertion of the petitioner that the suit property had been let out to the respondent at the rate of Rs.7,500/- per month. The respondent contended, per contra, that the rate of rent was only Rs.200/- per month and that, therefore, the matter was within the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 by virtue of Sections 50¹ read with Section 3(c)² thereof.

5. During the course of proceedings in the suit, the petitioners moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, seeking a decree on admissions. It was sought to be contended in the said application that, as the respondent had admitted the factum of tenancy as well as execution of the tenancy agreement, nothing further survived for adjudication and that, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to a decree on admissions.

6. Apropos the tenancy agreement dated 31st August, 2017, on which the petitioner sought to rely, the written statement of the respondent stated, inter alia, thus:

"B. That the defendant is doing his lawful business at the said tenanted premises, but in the year, 2016, the defendant being a illiterate person and have no knowledge about the English language, the plaintiff Vijay Kumar Jain asked the plaintiff to come to sign some papers for applying the commercial electricity meter and for the said purpose, there is requirement of signatures of the defendant on the documents for his personal use and to produced the same before the authorities and requested the defendant to sign some documents. The defendant under the good faith and belief, signed some papers, as the said documents were in English language and when the defendant requested the plaintiff to read over the contents of the said document, but the plaintiff asked the defendant that the said documents were formality of the govt. authority, then the defendant under his impression signed some documents.

C. That the plaintiff after few days shown the defendant a copy of the rent agreement and supply the copy of the same to the defendant, which is forged and fabricated, it came to the knowledge of the defendant when the defendant saw the said agreement to the person, who has well known about the English language, the defendant was shocked and surprised after hearing the contents of the said rent agreement th