An admission must be unequivocal, unambiguous, and unconditional to warrant a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC; discretion to grant such judgment is not a matter of right but requires clear admissions.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned order dated 12.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred as „Trial Court‟) in CS DJ No.170/2021 titled as “Rajni Gupta vs. Sanjay Gupta & Anr.” whereby the petitioner/plaintiff‟s application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) was dismissed by the learned Trial Court.

2. According to the averments in the plaint, the petitioner is the owner of the property bearing No.2782, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi 110006 (“Suit Property”) by virtue of a sale deed dated 27.03.2009. The respondents herein as well as their predecessors were tenants of the suit property.

3. The petitioner sent a legal demand notice to the respondents, demanding payment of rent. However, since the notice was to no avail, the petitioner was compelled to file an eviction petition under Section 14(1) (a), (d) & (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act , 1958 (“DRC Act”). The respondents thereafter filed their written statement whereby they claimed ownership of the suit property. Since the respondents had renounced landlord-tenant relationship, the petitioner filed the present suit for possession against the respondents.

4. The petitioner, then filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, seeking judgment on the admissions made by the respondents in their written statement. The respondents filed their reply to the application and vide the impugned order, the petitioner‟s application came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court wherein it was recorded that only because there is a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff does not mean that an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC may be allowed.

5. Mr Ajay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is a cryptic order passed without any cogent reason. The learned counsel places reliance on “ Neha Saini vs Raghubir Singh ” in CM(M) No.291/2022 wherein this Court held that while dismissing an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the Court must give reasoning and that the order must not be in a laconic fashion.

6. The learned counsel places reliance on the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in “ Naeem Ahmed vs Yash Pal Malhotra (Deceased) Through LR’s & Anr: (2012) 188 DLT 579 ” to impress upon the argument that once the tenant deny landlord-tenant relationship, the suit for recovery of possession would lie and on said basis, the petitioner withdrew the earlier eviction petition under DRC Act and filed a fresh suit for possession against the respondent.

7. The learned counsel further contended that though the respondents in their written statement have averred that (a) Late Lala Ram Swaroop was the head of a Joint Hindu Family which then comprised of Late Lala Ram Swaroop and his sons Lala Bishan Swarup, Om Prakash, Kulu Mal, Ram Kumar, and Radhey Shyam, (b) that the property was purchased from funds of the family in the name of Smt. Sarla Singhal who was the wife of Sh. Radhey Shyam, (c) that the property was given in a clutter of the HUF headed by Late Lala Ram Swaroop (d) that Radhey Shyam was given in adoption to Lala Ram Chand, (e) that Smt. Sarla Singhal then gifted the suit property to her son Sh. Rajeev Singhal who later sold it to the petitioner/plaintiff. But the respondents have failed to show existence of a HUF. Further, the written statement does not find any mention of when the suit property was thrown into a common clutter. Reliance to this effect is placed on judgments of this Court in “Sh. Surender Kumar vs Sh. Dhani Ram & Ors: AIR 2016 DEL 120 ” as well as “Master Ansh Kapoor & Anr vs K.B Kapur & Anr: AIR 2021 DEL 51 ” and it was submitted that it has been held that under Order VI Rule 4 CPC, all necessary facts and details of the cause of action must be clearly mentio