Clear admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC are required; disputed tenancy and lease facts must go to trial.

A decree on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is permissible only where the admission is clear, unequivocal and positive; contested pleas that lease deeds were sham, that separate tenancies existed, and that rent was received separately raised factual disputes requiring evidence, so summary decree was unsustainable. The court further held that questions about contractual tenancy, the effect of separate rent receipts, the character of the lease deeds, and termination or expiry of tenancy were triable issues not fit for disposal on admission. As both suits involved the same parties, premises and lease arrangements, joint trial was appropriate to avoid inconsistent findings. The appeals succeeded, the decrees were set aside, and the suits were remanded for trial together.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suits could be decreed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of admissions in the written statement; (ii) whether the pleas raised by the defendant disclosed triable issues requiring evidence and trial; (iii) whether the two suits should be consolidated and tried jointly.

Issue (i): Whether the suits could be decreed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of admissions in the written statement.

Analysis: The provision empowers the court to pass judgment at any stage on the basis of admissions of fact made in the pleadings or otherwise, and the admission must be clear, unequivocal and positive. The court may act without waiting for determination of other questions, but the power is discretionary and must be exercised on settled principles. A party's plea that the lease deeds were sham, that separate tenancies existed, and that the rent was being received separately in individual names created a factual controversy that could not be resolved without evidence. The mere framing of issues did not bar a decree on admissions, but the admissions relied upon were not of the clear and unequivocal kind required for such a decree.

Conclusion: The decree under Order XII Rule 6 was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the pleas raised by the defendant disclosed triable issues requiring evidence and trial.

Analysis: The dispute whether the defendant had become a contractual tenant after 1995, the effect of the separate receipt of rent by the two plaintiffs, the nature of the alleged lease deeds, and the question of termination or expiry of tenancy involved contested facts going to the root of the matter. Such questions could only be decided after evidence. The court could not reject these defences as unbelievable at the stage of judgment on admission, because the controversy was not one that admitted of summary disposal.

Conclusion: The matters raised were triable issues and required a full trial.

Issue (iii): Whether the two suits should be consolidated and tried jointly.

Analysis: Both suits were between the same parties, related to the same premises, arose from lease arrangements of the same date, and involved a common set of issues. Separate trials would risk multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings. A joint trial was therefore appropriate for effective adjudication.

Conclusion: The two suits were directed to be consolidated and tried jointly.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the decrees based on admissions were set aside, the suits were remanded for trial, and the connected matters were ordered to be heard together.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree on admissions can be passed only where the admission is clear, unequivocal and positive; if the pleadings disclose disputed facts requiring evidence, the suit must proceed to trial.

---