( 1 ) WHETHER impugned judgment and decree for recovery of possession of Flat Nos. 12 and 11 at Connaught Place, New Delhi could have been passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is the question.

( 2 ) THE suit premises was taken on rent by Appellant from predecessor in interest of respondent (M/s. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust) vide Lease Deed dated 30. 7. 1965 for two years on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,790/ -. The lease was to commence from 27. 5. 1965 and expire on 30. 3. 1967. Appellant, however, continued to remain in possession after the expiry of lease on 30. 3. 1967 also. Meanwhile, pursuant to an amendment in the Delhi Rent Control Act, the suit premises fell out of its ambit and the Trust filed a suit No. 191/98 for recovery of possession and damages and mesne profits. The Trust was later substituted by Respondent who had purchased the suit property meanwhile.

( 3 ) APPELLANT filed its written statement raising the preliminary objection that the suit suffered from lack of cause of action and that no notice was served on the Board under Section 478 of DMC Act. On merits, it claimed that it was continuing in the premises as a tenant without any dispute for 23 years as was evident from the pre-receipted bills of rent raised by the Trust and the present respondent and the rent received by them. It accordingly denied that tenancy had expired by efflux of time and also disputed that any notice was served on it under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to terminate it.

( 4 ) AS many as seven issues were framed in the suit on 19. 10. 2000 which included the issues related to service of notice under Section 478 of DMC Act and about the validity of termination of tenancy by notice under Section 106 of TPA also. Respondent (plaintiff) was asked to lead evidence on 27. 11. 2000. The suit was listed on different dates for plaintiff s evidence till 17. 4. 2001.

( 5 ) IT appears that instead of leading any evidence in the suit, respondent (plaintiff) filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with section 151 CPC seeking a judgment on admission of facts. This application was contested by Appellant on its maintainability as also on merits disputing that any admission of fact arose on the basis of which a decree could be passed. The Trial court all the same dealt with all the pleas and objections taken by Appellant and entered the judgment on holding that tenancy in question had expired by efflux of time, obviating the necessity of service of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. It also held that provisions of Section 478 of DMC Act were not attracted to the case to warrant any prior notice under these and in any case notice under this and under Section 106 of TPA should be presumed to have been served in the facts and circumstances of the case. The court then proceeded to pass the judgment on finding that there were admissions of fact in respect of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and of the tenancy having expired by efflux of time and also of the rent fixed under the Lease Deed.

( 6 ) APPELLANT s whole case is that Trial Court could not have passed the judgment under Order 12 Rule 6 as there were no unequivocal admissions of fact arising in the suit and as issues stood framed in it which required evidence for determination which was not led by the plaintiff and instead application under Order 12 Rule 6 was filed by him 10 years after Appellant s written statement. It is submitted that once Respondent had disputed that tenancy had not expired by efflux of time and that it was continuing and was not terminated, no judgment/decree could have been passed under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC upon a rebuttable presumption raised by Trial court in respect of notices under Sections 478 of DMC Act and 106 of Transfer of Property Act.

( 7 ) LD. counsel for Respondent justified the judgment claiming that the tenancy had admittedly expired on 30. 3. 1967 and since no further tenancy had come into be