Decree on admissions in landlord-tenant disputes turns on clear tenancy admission, valid notice, and tenant estoppel.

In a suit for possession against an unprotected tenant, a decree on admissions may be granted under Order XII Rule 6 CPC where the pleadings clearly admit the landlord-tenant relationship, possession under the landlord, and the agreed rent. The character of use of the premises does not alter the admitted tenancy for this purpose. The note also states that a month-to-month tenancy can be terminated by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and that a tenant is estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act from disputing the landlord's title during the tenancy. On that basis, the notice was treated as effective and possession relief was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the pleadings contained a clear and unequivocal admission of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and the agreed rent so as to justify a decree for possession on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether the tenancy stood terminated by service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and whether the tenant could dispute the landlord's title in view of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Issue (i): Whether the pleadings contained a clear and unequivocal admission of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and the agreed rent so as to justify a decree for possession on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The pleadings showed that the lease agreement was admitted, the monthly rent was not in dispute, and the defendant accepted possession under the plaintiff. The character of the use of the premises, whether residential or commercial, did not affect the existence of the tenancy for the purpose of possession. In a suit by a landlord against a tenant whose tenancy is outside rent control protection, a decree on admissions can be granted where the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted and the relevant rent is admitted.

Conclusion: The admission was sufficient, and the suit for possession could be decreed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (ii): Whether the tenancy stood terminated by service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and whether the tenant could dispute the landlord's title in view of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Analysis: The written statement did not deny receipt of the termination notice and only questioned its validity. That amounted to an admission of service. The tenant's challenge to the plaintiff's title was based on a position anterior to the commencement of the tenancy and was barred by the rule that a tenant is estopped from denying the landlord's title during the continuance of the tenancy. The notice was not shown to be invalid, and the tenancy was a month-to-month tenancy liable to termination under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Conclusion: The tenancy was validly terminated, and the tenant was estopped from disputing the landlord's title.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unsustainable, the decree for possession was restored, and the appeal succeeded with time granted for vacating the premises.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for possession against an unprotected tenant, a decree on admissions is warranted where the pleadings clearly admit the landlord-tenant relationship and the agreed rent, and the tenancy is shown to have been terminated or is otherwise terminable by notice; the tenant cannot defeat such relief by disputing the landlord's title during the subsistence of the tenancy.

---