Judgment on admissions and forfeiture relief: tenant's inconsistent stands and admitted default justified eviction and barred equitable relief.

Order 12 Rule 6 CPC permits judgment on admissions where there is no real controversy, and admissions may be gathered from pleadings, applications and conduct; the tenant's admission of the landlord-tenant relationship, default in rent and receipt of termination notice justified decree on admission. Relief against forfeiture under Section 114 TPA is equitable and unavailable to a party taking inconsistent stands, so the tenant's approbation and reprobation disentitled it to such relief. A tenant is also estopped from denying the lessor's title during the tenancy, and the tenant's conduct did not warrant discretionary interference under Article 136.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a decree could be passed under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of the admissions made by the tenant in pleadings and in its application under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; (ii) whether the tenant was entitled to equitable relief against forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in view of its inconsistent stands and conduct; (iii) whether the tenant could deny the lessor's title in the face of the relationship of landlord and tenant and its admitted default in payment of rent, and whether discretionary relief under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was warranted.

Issue (i): Whether a decree could be passed under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of the admissions made by the tenant in pleadings and in its application under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Analysis: Order 12 Rule 6 is intended to enable speedy judgment where there is no real controversy. The provision is enabling and discretionary, but its scope is wide enough to cover admissions made not only in pleadings but also otherwise during the proceedings. Admissions may be inferred from the surrounding facts and conduct, and the tenant's stand in its application under Section 114, filed in the very suit, could be taken into account. The tenant had admitted the relationship of lessor and lessee, admitted non-payment of rent, and admitted receipt of the notice of termination. These admissions were sufficient to justify judgment on admission.

Conclusion: The decree on admission was justified and was not liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the tenant was entitled to equitable relief against forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in view of its inconsistent stands and conduct.

Analysis: Relief under Section 114 is equitable and cannot be claimed by a party who takes mutually inconsistent positions. The tenant simultaneously challenged the lessor's title and, in the application under Section 114, proceeded on the basis that the same lessor-tenant relationship existed and that rent was payable under the lease. Such conduct amounted to approbation and reprobation and attracted the doctrine of election. On that basis, the tenant was not entitled to the discretionary equitable relief against forfeiture.

Conclusion: The tenant was rightly denied relief against forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Issue (iii): Whether the tenant could deny the lessor's title in the face of the relationship of landlord and tenant and its admitted default in payment of rent, and whether discretionary relief under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was warranted.

Analysis: A tenant is estopped from denying the lessor's title during the continuance of the tenancy, and the exception relating to title paramount was inapplicable on the facts. The tenant's own suit challenging title had been dismissed and its default in rent was admitted in the pleadings and in related proceedings. The Court also treated the tenant's prolonged litigation strategy, repeated adjournments, and attempts to stall execution as relevant to the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. In view of the conduct of the tenant, no equitable interference was called for under Article 136.

Conclusion: The tenant was precluded from denying the lessor's title and was not entitled to discretionary relief under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The admissions and conduct of the tenant established liability to eviction, and no equitable or discretionary relief was available; the High Court's decree and directions for possession stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A clear admission of the essential facts, including the landlord-tenant relationship and non-payment of rent, can sustain judgment under Order 12 Rule 6, and a party who takes inconsistent positions cannot claim equitable relief against forfeiture or discretionary relief in appeal.

---