Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Nagesh Krishnaji Koyalkar, filed a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 23 November 2021 of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai. That order confirmed the Trial Court's order dated 15 January 2020 rejecting the Petitioner's application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for a decree on admission in R.A.D. Suit No. 489 of 2016. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff in the suit, seeking a declaration of tenancy in his favour in respect of Room No.5, 2nd Floor, Building No.23, Kamathipura, 10th Lane, Mumbai. The Respondents are the landlords. The Petitioner claimed to be the son of the deceased original tenant, Krishnaji Mahadeo Koyalkar, and that after the tenant's death, rent receipts were transferred to Respondent No.6. The Petitioner argued that the Respondents' written statement contained admissions that he was a tenant, entitling him to a decree on admission. The Respondents denied the tenancy, asserting that the Petitioner was a trespasser or licensee. The Trial Court and the Appellate Bench both held that the statements in the written statement did not constitute a clear and unambiguous admission of tenancy. The High Court, after reviewing the impugned orders and the written statement, agreed that the alleged admissions were not unequivocal. The Court noted that the written statement referred to the Petitioner as a "trespasser" and that the Respondents had consistently denied the tenancy. The Court held that Order XII Rule 6 CPC requires a clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal admission, which was absent. The Court also observed that the suit involves disputed questions of fact regarding tenancy that require a full trial. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, finding no error in the concurrent decisions of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Decree on Admission - Order XII Rule 6 CPC - Admission must be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal - The Petitioner sought a decree on admission claiming that the Respondents admitted his tenancy in the written statement. The Court held that the statements in the written statement were not clear admissions of tenancy but rather assertions that the Petitioner was a licensee or trespasser. The Court found that the Trial Court and Appellate Bench correctly rejected the application as there was no admission warranting a decree. (Paras 1-10)
B) Tenancy Law - Declaration of Tenancy - Burden of Proof - The Petitioner filed a suit for declaration of tenancy. The Respondents denied the tenancy and claimed the Petitioner was a trespasser. The Court noted that the issue of tenancy is a disputed question of fact that requires trial and cannot be decided summarily under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. (Paras 2-5)
C) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the impugned orders. It found no error in the concurrent findings of the courts below and dismissed the petition. (Paras 1, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, based on the Respondents' written statement in a suit for declaration of tenancy.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the orders of the Trial Court and the Appellate Bench rejecting the Petitioner's application for decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
Law Points
- Order XII Rule 6 CPC
- decree on admission
- admission must be clear and unambiguous
- tenancy declaration
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (06) 139
Writ Petition No. 939 of 2022
Mr. Juzer Udaipuri with Ms. Sofia Udaipuri i/by M/s Udaipuri and company for the Petitioner; Mr. Tushar V. Dahibawkar i/by Ms. Rita P. Swaminarayan for the Respondents
Mr. Nagesh Krishnaji Koyalkar
Mr. Balaram Ashok Manjarekar, Mr. Ramesh Ashok Manjrekar, Mr. Shivaji Ashok Manjrekar, Mrs. Varjraveni Shankar Manjrekar, Mr. Mohan Ashok Manjrekar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of an application for decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC in a pending tenancy suit.
Remedy Sought
The Petitioner sought a decree on admission declaring him as a tenant of the suit premises based on alleged admissions in the Respondents' written statement.
Filing Reason
The Petitioner claimed that the Respondents admitted his tenancy in their written statement, entitling him to a decree without trial.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court rejected the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on 15 January 2020, and the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court confirmed that order on 23 November 2021.
Issues
Whether the statements in the Respondents' written statement constitute a clear and unambiguous admission of the Petitioner's tenancy so as to warrant a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
Whether the impugned orders of the Trial Court and Appellate Bench suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
The Petitioner argued that the Respondents' written statement admitted that the Petitioner was a tenant and that the rent receipts were in the name of Respondent No.6, which amounts to an admission of tenancy.
The Respondents contended that they never admitted the Petitioner's tenancy; they stated that the Petitioner was a trespasser and that the suit involves disputed questions of fact requiring trial.
Ratio Decidendi
A decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC can be passed only when the admission is clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal. In the present case, the statements in the written statement did not amount to a clear admission of tenancy; rather, the Respondents denied the tenancy and characterized the Petitioner as a trespasser. Therefore, the application was rightly rejected, and the suit must proceed to trial on the disputed issues.
Judgment Excerpts
This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 23rd November, 2021 of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai in Revision Application No. 39 of 2020 in Exhibit No.37 in pending R.A.D. Suit No.489 of 2016 confirming the order dated 15th January, 2020 passed by the Trial court below Exhibit No.37 in the said suit rejecting Petitioner’s application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for a decree on admission.
The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff in the said suit and the Respondents No.1 to 5 are the landlords against whom the Petitioner has filed the suit for declaration of tenancy in his favour in respect of premises being Room No.5, 2nd floor, Building No.23, Kamathipura, 10th Lane, Mumbai 400 008.
Procedural History
The Petitioner filed R.A.D. Suit No. 489 of 2016 in the Small Causes Court at Mumbai for declaration of tenancy. During the suit, the Petitioner filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC (Exhibit No.37) seeking a decree on admission. The Trial Court rejected the application on 15 January 2020. The Petitioner filed Revision Application No. 39 of 2020 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, which was dismissed on 23 November 2021. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 27 June 2023.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XII Rule 6
- Constitution of India: Article 227
