Order XII Rule 6 CPC| Application For Judgment On Admissions May Be Filed At Any Stage Of Suit: Karnataka High Court

Justice K.S. Mudagal quashed the order of the Trial Court, by which it had rejected the application made by petitioners under Order XII Rule 6 for delivery of possession of their rented property citing admissions in the pleadings filed by the Respondents, on the ground that the questions raised require proper trial.

Case Background:

The petitioner, owner of a residential bungalow, entered into a lease agreement with respondent No.1 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,30,000. The petitioners claimed the rent agreement was for a period of 11 months, which was extendable for another 11 months and thereafter, at the option of the petitioners.

The dispute arose when the petitioners issued a notice to the respondents terminating the tenancy and calling upon them to handover the possession of the property.

The respondents claimed that the lease was a perpetual one and further, in the agreement there was no clause to terminate the tenancy.

Consequently, the petitioner filed a suit for ejectment of the defendants from the suit property, vacant possession and mesne profits.

In their written statements, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 admitted their possession of the premises as tenants.

Following this, the petitioners moved the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, claiming decree of possession, which came to be rejected by the Trial Court.

Before the High Court, it was submitted that there were clear admissions in the pleadings as well as in the reply notice regarding the jural relationship and termination of the tenancy. Therefore, the Trial Court should have exercised discretion to pass a decree.

The Respondents on the other hand opposed the plea on following counts: (i) in a Writ Petition, Court cannot pass a decree; (ii) if at all the application was allowed, the proceedings before the Trial Court would be terminated, in such case, a Revision Petition under Section 115 of CPC lies and not the Writ Petition; (iii) there are no clear-cut admissions in the pleading; (iv) therefore, the matter requires adjudication in trial.

Findings:

At the outset, the Court noted that under Order XII Rule 6 Sub-rule(3) as amended by the Karnataka High Court Amendment, drawing of the decree is discretionary as the word 'may' is used. Therefore, the contention that a decree cannot be drawn in writ proceedings was of no consequence, the Court said.

It added,

"The reading of the above provisions makes it clear that the admissions contemplated under Order XII Rule 6 may be either in pleading or otherwise, it may be oral or in writing. Such an application can be filed at any stage of the suit."

Furthermore, it observed,

"Indisputably, this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India exercises power of superintendence on all the subordinate Courts. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, taking into consideration overall material on record, this Court can mould the relief appropriately reading Order XII Rule 6(3) and Section 37 CPC together and directing the Trial Court to draw the decree."

Maintainability

The Court noted that the suit was filed by the petitioner not only for delivery of possession of the property, but also for mesne profit. Therefore, even if application for delivery of possession of the property was allowed, still the suit was to be continued to consider the other relief sought in the suit.

"Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that if the application was allowed, the proceedings before the Trial Court were getting terminated and the writ petition does not lie and only a revision lies," it was held.

Regarding the admissions

The court then analysed the admissions made by the defendants as claimed by the petitioners and said,

"In the absence of the registered documents, as per Section 106(1) of the Transfer of Property Act lease is deemed to be month to month. In such a case, Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act requires issuance of 15 days notice for termination of lease. This was admittedly done in this case. Therefore there was sufficient admission to pass a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC."

In parting, the Court expressed sympathy with the petitioner who was 75 years old at the time of filing, and died during pendency of proceedings.

"Petitioners are harassed and subjected to hardship due to protracted litigation that too when there are admissions with regard to the jural relationship and termination of tenancy. For the aforesaid reasons, this is a fit case to exercise the discretion to grant decree under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. The trial Court has failed to exercise its discretion vested in it judiciously," it said.

Accordingly, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were directed to handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the petitioners within 60 days. The Trial Court has been directed to draw the decree accordingly.

The Trial Court is also directed to proceed with the suit with regard to the relief regarding mesne profits.

Case Title: Late Indravathi Srinivasan v. Dr. Sunitha Venugopal

Case No: Writ Petition No.17829/2018

Date Of Order: 7th Day of October 2021

Appearance: Advocate Shravanth Arya Tandra & Advocate N.S.Srirajgowda, Advocate Shishira Amarnath, for Petitioners; Advocate V.B. Shivakumar, for Respondents

Click Here To Read/Download Order