Judgment on admission requires clear, unconditional admissions; disputed tenancy, ownership and control issues prevented a possession decree.

A decree of possession on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 and Order XIIIA CPC was refused because the alleged landlord-tenant relationship was disputed and the admissions were not clear, unambiguous or unconditional. The defendant challenged the genuineness of the lease, relied on a later memorandum suggesting the arrangement was only to show rental income for bank loans, and raised issues about ownership of the property and pending disputes over shareholding and control. As these contested matters required trial, judgment on admission was not maintainable and the application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of possession on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 read with Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the basis of the alleged landlord-tenant relationship and termination of tenancy.

Analysis: Relief under Order XII Rule 6 can be granted only where the defendant makes clear, unambiguous and unconditional admissions capable of sustaining a decree without trial. The defendant disputed the genuineness of the lease, relied on a later memorandum recording that the arrangement was only to show rental income for bank loans, and raised issues touching the family nature of the company, ownership of the suit property, and the pending disputes concerning shareholding and control. On the material before it, the admissions relied upon by the plaintiff were not of such a categorical nature as to justify a judgment on admission. The disputed questions required trial.

Conclusion: The application for judgment on admission was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---