Possession on admissions: expired lease arbitration clause could not resist eviction once month-to-month tenancy and notice to quit were admitted.
A decree for possession on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 was considered justified where pleadings and admitted documents showed a landlord-tenant relationship, monthly rent, and service of notice to quit. The expired written arrangement and its arbitration clause could not control a later oral month-to-month tenancy, so the clause could not defeat eviction. The commentary also notes that a prior final finding on the nature of the relationship operated as res judicata, and that rent may take forms beyond money under the Transfer of Property Act. On the admitted facts, the requirements for possession were treated as satisfied.
Issues: (i) Whether a decree for possession on admissions was justified under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure despite the plea that the parties had a business relationship and that the earlier lease deed contained an arbitration clause. (ii) Whether the earlier adjudication between the same parties on the nature of the relationship barred re-agitation of the issue and whether the admitted facts supported eviction.
Issue (i): Whether a decree for possession on admissions was justified under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure despite the plea that the parties had a business relationship and that the earlier lease deed contained an arbitration clause.
Analysis: The pleadings and admitted documents showed a landlord-tenant relationship, payment of consolidated monthly rent of Rs. 15,000, and service of notice to quit. The earlier written arrangement had expired long before and the tenancy thereafter continued orally from month to month. Once the earlier contract had come to an end, the arbitration clause contained in that exhausted document could not govern the later oral tenancy. Admissions for the purpose of Order XII Rule 6 may be express or constructive, and the Court may rely on admissions found in pleadings and surrounding documents to avoid a futile trial.
Conclusion: The decree for possession on admissions was justified and the plea based on the old arbitration clause failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the earlier adjudication between the same parties on the nature of the relationship barred re-agitation of the issue and whether the admitted facts supported eviction.
Analysis: The earlier decision between the same parties had already held that the relationship had become that of landlord and tenant on a month-to-month basis, and that finding had attained finality. The principle of res judicata applied to prevent re-opening of that issue at a later stage of the same dispute. Further, Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act recognises that rent may consist not only of money but also of a share of crops, services, or other valuable consideration, so the characterization of the payment did not defeat the tenancy relationship. On the admitted facts, the statutory requirements for possession were satisfied.
Conclusion: The earlier finding bound the parties and the material on record supported eviction.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits, and the decree for possession in favour of the respondent stood affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the subsisting tenancy is a month-to-month tenancy and the pleadings disclose clear admissions of landlord-tenant relationship, rent, and notice to quit, a decree for possession may be granted on admissions, and an arbitration clause in an expired contract cannot be invoked to resist eviction.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
