TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the second application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure was maintainable after an earlier application had been dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file a fresh application; (ii) whether the tenancy stood validly terminated so as to justify a decree for possession on the basis of admissions.
Issue (i): whether the second application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure was maintainable after an earlier application had been dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file a fresh application.
Analysis: The earlier application was dismissed as not pressed with express liberty to move a fresh application if the suit was not disposed of expeditiously. That liberty preserved the respondents' right to approach the Court again on the same plea. The mere fact that issues had later been framed did not bar consideration of an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Conclusion: The second application was maintainable, and the objection to it failed.
Issue (ii): whether the tenancy stood validly terminated so as to justify a decree for possession on the basis of admissions.
Analysis: The written statement did not deny the landlord-tenant relationship or the monthly rent, and the appellant admitted receipt of the termination notice. The only challenge was a vague assertion that the notice was not in accordance with law, without any supporting particulars. The notice itself terminated the tenancy and the suit was instituted after such termination. In these circumstances, the defence disclosed no real triable issue on possession.
Conclusion: The tenancy stood validly terminated, and the decree for possession on admissions was justified.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was liable to be dismissed because the respondents were entitled to a decree for possession on the basis of admitted facts and the termination notice, and the framing of issues did not prevent recourse to Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the landlord-tenant relationship and receipt of the termination notice are admitted, a vague denial of the notice's legality without particulars does not raise a triable issue, and a decree for possession may be passed on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure even after issues have been framed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
