Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s. Caesars Restaurant and its proprietor S.M. Dayananda, were defendants in a suit for eviction and recovery of rent filed by the respondents, M/s. T. Shivaram & Others (a partnership firm) and its partners. The respondents/plaintiffs sought a decree directing the defendants to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit property and to pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs.44,65,685/-. The defendants filed a written statement admitting the tenancy but disputing the quantum of arrears, claiming that they had paid rent up to September 2014 and that the plaintiffs had not accounted for certain payments. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC seeking a decree on admission. The trial court allowed the application in part, directing the defendants to pay Rs.44,65,685/- as arrears of rent, but did not pass a decree for possession. Aggrieved, the defendants filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court heard both sides and examined the impugned order. The court noted that the defendants had not made an unambiguous admission of liability for the entire arrears; they had disputed the quantum and claimed set-off. The court held that a decree on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC can be passed only when the admission is clear, unambiguous, and unconditional. Since the defendants had raised triable issues regarding the arrears, the trial court erred in passing a partial decree. The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in the order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Decree on Admission - Order 12 Rule 6 CPC - Unambiguous Admission - The court held that a decree on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC can be passed only when the admission is clear, unambiguous, and unconditional. In the present case, the defendants' statement in the written statement that they were tenants and had paid rent up to a certain date did not constitute an unambiguous admission of liability for the entire arrears claimed, especially when they disputed the quantum and claimed set-off. The trial court's partial decree was set aside. (Paras 3-6) B) Rent and Tenancy - Arrears of Rent - Set-off - The defendants claimed that they had paid rent up to September 2014 and that the plaintiffs had failed to account for payments made. The court noted that the dispute regarding the exact amount of arrears and the claim of set-off raised triable issues, which could not be decided summarily under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. (Paras 3-6) C) Civil Procedure Code - Leave to Defend - Order 12 Rule 6 CPC - The court observed that when a defendant raises a bona fide defence and disputes the quantum of arrears, the court should not pass a decree on admission but should grant leave to defend. The impugned order was set aside and the trial court was directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in passing a partial decree on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC when the alleged admission was not unambiguous and the defendants had raised triable issues.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned order dated 9.3.2016, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in the order.
Law Points
- Order 12 Rule 6 CPC
- decree on admission
- unambiguous admission
- partial decree
- rent arrears
- possession
- leave to defend
