Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (5) TMI 940

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... atement filed by appellant. In passing the said judgment the High Court affirmed the judgment and decree of dispossession passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi on 23.09.2008 against the appellant. 3. The material facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs, claiming to be the landlords/owners of the premises bearing Flat No.205, (2nd Floor), Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhambha Road, New Delhi-110001 having area of 581 sq. ft., (super area) (hereinafter, `the suit premises') filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of possession and mesne profit. The case of the plaintiff-landlord in the plaint is that the appellant was inducted as a tenant vide lease deed dated 07.07.2003 at a monthly rent of ₹ 23,200/ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t. The copy of said notice is annexed herewith as Annexure A-3. The registration receipt, UPC and acknowledgement card are annexed herewith as Annexure A-4 to A-6 respectively. 6. That the defendant, despite, the determination of its tenancy of the said suit property has failed to vacate the suit property and handover the possession thereof to the Plaintiffs . 7. In the written statement, which was filed by the appellant, paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaint have been dealt with in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the written statement respectively. Those two paragraphs are set out below:- 5. That the contents of para 5 of the plaint are a matter of record. It is submitted that tenancy has neither expired by efflux of time nor it has been termin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hether the termination of the tenancy has been validly terminated? 11. To that application the appellant had given a reply.In paragraph 2 of the reply it was again denied by the appellant that there was any admission by them about termination or determination of tenancy. In the said reply it has been stated that in the suit issues are still to be framed and the case be tried in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code as there is no admission by the appellant and the respondents-plaintiffs have to prove its case with legally admissible evidence. As such prayer was made to dismiss the application of the respondents-plaintiffs under Order 12 Rule 6. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs relied on a judgment of this Court .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of India and others reported in (2000) 7 SCC 120 the provision of Order 12 Rule 6 came up for consideration before this Court. This Court on a detailed consideration of the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 made it clear wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed the principle will apply. In the instant case it cannot be said that there is a clear admission of the case of the respondents-plaintiffs about termination of tenancy by the appellant in its written statement or in its reply to the petition of the respondents-plaintiffs under Order 12 Rule 6. 15. It may be noted here that in this case parties have confined their case of admission to their pleadi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pany (Limited) reported in The Times Law Reports 1891-92 Volume 8 at page 81, similar principles were laid down by Lord Justice Lopes, wherein His Lordship held judgment ought not to be signed upon admissions in a pleading or an affidavit, unless the admissions were clear and unequivocal . Both Lord Justice Esher and Lord Justice Fry concurred with the opinion of Lord Justice Lopes. 18. In yet another decision of the Court of Appeal in Landergan vs. Feast reported in The Law Times Reports 1886-87 Volume 85 at page 42, in an appeal from Chancery Division, Lord Justice Lindley and Lord Justice Lopes held that party is not entitled to apply under the aforesaid rule unless there is a clear admission that the money is due and recoverable in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates