Shashwati Chowdhury
Published on: July 20, 2022 at 18:33 IST
Supreme Court of India was hearing the petition which challenged the Judgment dated 08.04.2021, passed by the High Court of Delhi in RegularFirst Appeal preferred by the Appellant, in which the said RFA was dismissed and the High Court thereby upheld the Order and Review Order passed by ADJO7,Saket Court, NewDelhi.
The tenant-defendant was sued by the landlord in this case for recovery of possession, unpaid rent, lost profits, and interest. By passing judgement and a decree based on the written statement’s admissions, the Trial Court granted the Plaintiff’s request under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC for delivery of possession with regard to the suit property. Tenant’s appeal was denied by HC.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, given that the judgement on admission is a judgement without trial that permanently denies the Appellant from seeking relief on merit, the Trial Court should not have exercised its jurisdiction by decreeing the suit of Respondent’s under Order XII Rule 6.
Following the hearing of both sides, the SC stated that the words “may” and “as it may think fit” in the legislative intent is clear to make the nature of admission. The said power, which is discretionary, should only be used when specific, clear, and categorical admissions of facts and documents are on record. Otherwise, the Court can refuse to invoke the power granted by Order XII Rule 6.
The SC held that “for the purpose of Order XII Rule 6, the said admission is not clear and categorical, so as to exercise a discretion by the Court without dealing with the defence as taken by Defendant.” After carefully considering that any observations made by this court might affect the merit of either side, we are not recording any findings on the issue of tenancy or with regard to the defence as taken by the Defendant because we know that any observations made by this Court could affect the merit of either side.
Consequently, the Trial Court’s judgement and decree, which was upheld by the High Court, only on admission of fact without considering the defence in exercise of power under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC is hereby set aside