Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 12 Rule 6 — Judgment on admission — Denial of — Reliance on unclaimed legal notice for determination of lease for admission of tenancy, determination –

February 20th, 2013

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 12 Rule 6 — Judgment on admission — Denial of — Reliance on unclaimed legal notice for determination of lease for admission of tenancy, determination — Revision petition against denial of passing judgment on admission that respondent defendant has admitted tenancy as petitioner plaintiff has sent legal notice terminating tenancy which returned unclaimed — Held, judgment on admission is not a matter of right and rather is a matter of discretion of the Court and is neither mandatory nor is it peremptory — This rule applies wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making it, to succeed — There was no admission by the respondent regarding the receipt of legal notice and the petitioner had sought a decree of eviction on the ground of a legal notice sent by him — The procedure laid in the statutes cannot be simplified and moulded to such an extent that would amount to miscarriage of justice — If mere sending of legal notice terminating the tenancy by the landlord would be deemed to be constituting as admission of its receipt and contents by the tenant, then the legislations regulating the eviction procedures are an exercise in vain — Order passed by the ld. Trial Court is based on sound reasoning and correct appreciation of material on record and requires no interference — The petition being without any merit is dismissed — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 111 (g) & (h).

State Bank of India vs. M/s Midland Industries, AIR 1988 Delhi 153, Referred.

(Para 8, 9 and 12)

HELD: Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is enacted for the purpose of expediting the trials; if there is any admission on behalf of the defendant or an admission can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute. The said rule is an enabling provision which confers discretion on the Court to deliver a speedy judgment on admission and to the extent of the claim admitted by one of the parties of his opponent’s claim. However, a judgment on admission is not a matter of right and rather is a matter of discretion of the Court and is neither mandatory nor it is peremptory. This rule applies wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making it, to succeed.

(Para 8)

Now, let us proceed to examine whether in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ld. Civil Judge was within its jurisdiction to dismiss the application of the petitioner for a judgment on admission or not. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that there is no admission by the respondent regarding even the receipt of legal notice, let alone its contents. The regd. A.D. and U.P.C. placed on record by the petitioner are no doubt a conclusive proof of sending of notice by the petitioner, but cannot be deemed to be a proof of the respondent receiving the same. There is no endorsement by the postal department to the effect of receipt of the notice by the respondent. The petitioner has sought a decree of eviction on the ground of a legal notice sent by him. Naturally, the procedure laid in the statutes cannot be simplified and moulded to such an extent that would amount to miscarriage of justice. If mere sending of legal notice terminating the tenancy by the landlord would be deemed to be constituted as admission of its receipt and contents by the tenant, then the legislations regulating the eviction procedures are an exercise in vain.

(Para 9)

In view of the above discussion, I am of the considerate opinion that the order passed by the ld. Civil Judge, to which the petitioner has taken an exception, is based on sound reasoning and correct appreciation of material on record and requires no interference. I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Keeping in mind the false and frivolous plea taken up by the petitioner twice in a row, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met by imposing a cost of Rs. 5000/- on the petitioner. The petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed.

(Para 12)

Deepak Rastogi v. Flexi Resource Solution Pvt.Ltd., C.R.P. 201/2010(23/07/2012), 2012(191) DLT 535 [M.L. Mehta, J.]

Entry Filed under: Judgements,Property Laws