2010 (5) TMI 940 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the determination of tenancy, validity of termination of lease, and the application of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure for passing a judgment on admission.

Determination of Tenancy:
The case involved a dispute regarding the expiry of the tenancy by efflux of time and the termination of the lease. The plaintiff-landlord claimed that the lease had expired, and a termination notice was sent to the tenant. However, the tenant disputed both the expiry of tenancy and the termination. The appellant argued that the lease deed could not be terminated due to certain clauses. The court did not decide on these contentions but focused on the admission issue.

Validity of Termination of Lease:
The plaintiff-landlord claimed that the lease had expired, and a termination notice was sent to the tenant. The tenant disputed the termination in their written statement. The court noted that there was no clear admission by the tenant regarding the termination of the lease. The appellant denied admitting to the termination or determination of tenancy, emphasizing that issues were still to be framed and tried according to the Civil Procedure Code.

Application of Order 12 Rule 6:
The respondents-plaintiffs filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 for passing a judgment on admission based on the appellant's written statement. The appellant denied any admission and requested the dismissal of the application. The court analyzed previous judgments related to Order 12 Rule 6 and emphasized the need for a clear and unequivocal admission for its application. It was concluded that there was no clear admission of the plaintiff's case by the appellant in the pleadings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Additional District Judge. The matter was remanded to the trial court for expedited disposal within six months. The court clarified that it had not made any observations on the merits of the case. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.