Expired fixed-term lease, no bona fide defence, and no notice required: possession can follow on admission.

A fixed-term lease that had expired by efflux of time supported a decree for possession on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC where no bona fide triable defence existed. The suit was outside the rent control regime because the agreed rent exceeded the statutory ceiling after the 1988 amendment. No notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was required for determination of the lease. Continuation as a monthly tenant was not proved, as the post-expiry cheques were neither accepted nor encashed and the notices showed refusal to assent to continued occupation. The co-ownership and proposed partition plea did not raise a real defence.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the admitted lease deed, expiry of the fixed term, and absence of a bona fide triable defence, a decree for possession could be passed on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The lease was for a fixed term of ten years and the agreed rent was above the statutory ceiling applicable after the 1988 amendment, so the suit was maintainable outside the rent control regime. A lease for a fixed term ends by efflux of time, and no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was required for its determination. The alleged continuation as a monthly tenant was not established because the post-expiry cheques were not accepted or encashed, and the contemporaneous notices showed that the lessors had refused to assent to continued occupation. The plea based on co-ownership and the proposed partition was not a valid defence to defeat the suit, as all necessary parties were before the Court and the defence raised no real triable issue.

Conclusion: The Court held that the defence was illusory and that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for possession on admission.

---