A judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure is discretionary and requires a clear, unequivocal, and unconditional admission. It is improper to invoke this provision when the defendant raises substantive triable issues that negate the claimant's automatic entitlement to relief.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. K. Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P. Thirumala Rao, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. This appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC'), assails the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2016 passed by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.516 of 2012. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.15,94,544/- for recovery of possession against the appellant/defendant by invoking the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.

3. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.516 of 2012.

4. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are hereinafter referred to in the capacity they were arrayed before the trial Court.

History of the Suit

5. The respondent/plaintiff, a partnership concern, instituted the suit in O.S.No.516 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking a decree for eviction of the defendant, recovery of possession of the suit schedule property bearing Municipal Nos.3-4-526/24 and 3-4-526/25, admeasuring 747.50 Sq Yds, situated at Tahniyat Bagh, Lingampally, Hyderabad, along with recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.15,94,544/-, together with consequential reliefs.

Plaint Averments (Respondent/Plaintiff's case)

The specific case of the respondent/plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is as follows:

i) The plaintiff became the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 13.06.2012. Its title is traceable through a valid chain of antecedent transactions originating from one D. Hemalatha Devi and her husband D.L. Ananda Rao, the original owners of the property.

ii) The suit schedule property was originally let out to the defendant i.e., Union of India represented through the Department of Posts, in or about the year 1973, at a monthly rent of Rs.1,150/-, by the original landlady.

iii) The defendant committed default in payment of rent from October, 1985 onwards, and has continued in occupation of the premises without payment of rent and without any enhancement thereof, thereby rendering itself liable for eviction and payment of arrears.

iv) The predecessors-in-title had initiated proceedings for fixation of fair rent in R.C.No.128 of 2007, and the Rent Controller, by order dated 22.11.2010, fixed the fair rent at Rs.14,750/- per month, which has attained finality subject to appellate proceedings.

v) Despite legal notice dated 04.04.2012, duly served upon the defendant, determining the tenancy, the defendant neither vacated the premises nor paid the substantial arrears.

Written Statement (Appellant/Defendant's case)

The appellant/defendant filed a written statement, resisting the suit. While not disputing his status as a tenant, the defendant raised substantial and material defences, inter alia, as follows:

i) The defendant specifically denied the plaintiff's title and asserted that the plaintiff's vendors were not the absolute owners and that there were rival claims and litigations regarding the title to the property. Various persons, claiming to be purchasers or interested parties, have from time to time app