Judgment on admission in tenancy disputes requires clear, unequivocal admission; disputed termination defeats decree for possession.

A decree for possession on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC requires a clear, unambiguous and unequivocal admission that leaves no issue for trial, including on termination of tenancy. Because the written statement disputed expiry of tenancy and specifically denied determination of tenancy, mere admission of the landlord-tenant relationship and service of notice was insufficient to justify judgment on admission. The absence of a rejoinder did not turn the pleadings into a binding admission. Authorities cited by the respondents were distinguished on the basis that they involved unequivocal admissions on their facts, and the decree on admission was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a decree for possession could be passed on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the absence of a clear and unequivocal admission of termination of tenancy.

Issue (i): Whether a decree for possession could be passed on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the absence of a clear and unequivocal admission of termination of tenancy.

Analysis: The provision applies only where the admission is clear, unambiguous and unequivocal, and the admitted facts leave nothing for trial on the question in issue. The appellant's written statement disputed expiry of tenancy by efflux of time and specifically denied determination of tenancy. Mere admission of the landlord-tenant relationship and service of notice did not amount to an admission that justified judgment on admission. The absence of a rejoinder did not convert the pleadings into a clear admission. The cases relied upon by the respondents were distinguished on the ground that they turned on unequivocal admissions on their facts.

Conclusion: The decree on admission was not sustainable and the High Court and trial court orders were set aside.

---