Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Mr. Firoze Adi Vakil, as Defendant No.1B in RAE & R Suit No.744/1770 of 1992, filed a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20th July, 2016 passed by the Small Causes Court below Exh.53 and the revisional order dated 27th July, 2016 in Revision Application No.260 of 2015. The Petitioner sought dismissal of the eviction suit filed by the Respondent, Miss Zarene Framroz Munshi, who is the sole surviving executrix of the Will of late Framroze Pestonji Munshi and the landlord of the suit premises. The Petitioner's application under Order XII Rule 6 and Order VII Rule 11 CPC was based on alleged admissions made by the Respondent in additional written statements filed in another suit, RAD Suit No.2447 of 1991, where the Respondent had denied that the original Defendant No.1 (Ardeshir Framroze Vakil) was the tenant. The Petitioner argued that this admission showed that no landlord-tenant relationship existed, thus the Small Causes Court lacked jurisdiction. The Trial Court and the Revisional Authority rejected the application, holding that the admission was not clear and unambiguous. The High Court upheld these orders, noting that the admission in the additional written statements was made in a different suit and was not unequivocal. The court emphasized that for an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to succeed, the admission must be clear and unambiguous, and that Order VII Rule 11 CPC applies only when the plaint itself does not disclose a cause of action. The court also held that the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction as the plaint in the eviction suit clearly alleged a landlord-tenant relationship. The Writ Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Order XII Rule 6 CPC - Admission - Clear and Unambiguous - The court held that for an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to succeed, the admission must be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal. An admission made in a different suit, which is subject to interpretation and context, cannot be treated as a clear admission for dismissing the suit. (Paras 6-10)
B) Civil Procedure - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Rejection of Plaint - The court held that the rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is only permissible if the plaint itself does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by law. An alleged admission in another proceeding does not fall within the grounds for rejection under this provision. (Paras 11-12)
C) Rent Control - Eviction Suit - Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court - The court held that the Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to entertain the eviction suit as the relationship of landlord and tenant is not denied in the plaint. The alleged admission in another suit does not oust the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court. (Paras 13-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the alleged admission made by the landlord in additional written statements filed in a different suit (RAD Suit No.2447 of 1991) can be used to dismiss the eviction suit (RAE & R Suit No.744/1770 of 1992) under Order XII Rule 6 and Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition with no order as to costs, upholding the orders of the Trial Court and Revisional Authority.
Law Points
- Order XII Rule 6 CPC
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Admission must be clear and unambiguous
- Admission in another proceeding not binding
- Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 125
WRIT PETITION NO. 736 OF 2017
Mr P.S.Dani, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr Rohan Kelkar i/b Amin Kherada for the Petitioner; Dr Milind Sathe, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr Gaurav Thakur i/b A.S.Dayal & Associates for the Respondent
Miss Zarene Framroz Munshi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders rejecting application for dismissal of eviction suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to challenge the order dated 20th July, 2016 passed below Exh.53 in RAE & R Suit No.744/1770 of 1992 and the revisional order dated 27th July, 2016 in Revision Application No.260 of 2015, and sought dismissal of the eviction suit.
Filing Reason
The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent made admissions in additional written statements in another suit (RAD Suit No.2447 of 1991) that the original Defendant No.1 was not a tenant, which should lead to dismissal of the eviction suit for lack of jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
The Small Causes Court rejected the application below Exh.53, and the Revisional Authority dismissed the revision application.
Issues
Whether the alleged admission made by the landlord in additional written statements in another suit can be used to dismiss the eviction suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC?
Whether the plaint in the eviction suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC based on such admission?
Whether the Small Causes Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the eviction suit in light of the alleged admission?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the admission in the additional written statements was clear and unambiguous, showing that the original Defendant No.1 was not a tenant, thus the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction.
Respondent argued that the admission was not clear and was made in a different suit, and that the plaint in the eviction suit clearly disclosed a cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi
For an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to succeed, the admission must be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal. An admission made in a different suit, which is subject to interpretation and context, cannot be treated as a clear admission for dismissing the suit. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is only permissible if the plaint itself does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by law. The Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to entertain the eviction suit as the plaint alleges a landlord-tenant relationship.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 20th July, 2016 passed below Exh.53 in RAE & R Suit No. 744/1770 of 1992 as well as the order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 27th July, 2016 passed in Revision Application No.260 of 2015.
The application below Exh.53 was filed by the Petitioner (Defendant No.1B) for dismissal of the said RAE & R Suit No.744/1770 of 1992 on the basis of some alleged admissions contained in the additional Written Statements filed by the Respondent in answer to a suit filed by one Ardeshir Framroze Vakil being RAD Suit No.2447 of 1991.
Procedural History
The Petitioner filed an application (Exh.53) in RAE & R Suit No.744/1770 of 1992 under Order XII Rule 6 and Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of the suit. The Small Causes Court rejected the application on 20th July, 2016. The Petitioner filed Revision Application No.260 of 2015 before the Revisional Authority, which was dismissed on 27th July, 2016. The Petitioner then filed the present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XII Rule 6, Order VII Rule 11
