Uncontroverted pleadings and natural justice in bill verification justify payment of admitted dues and hearing before claim reduction.

Uncontroverted pleadings may amount to an admission, and a general denial is insufficient to dispute a claimant's factual assertion; on that basis, the first claim was treated as payable. A bill verification process that proposes to reduce or reject a monetary claim must comply with natural justice by giving the claimant notice and a fair opportunity to respond; an ex parte report prepared without such participation was held unsustainable. The commentary also notes that where the claimant lacked effective control of the premises during occupation by protected persons and security personnel, later objections to actual occupancy carried less weight, leading to liquidation of the verified dues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's first claim stood admitted for want of specific denial and was therefore payable. (ii) Whether the bill verification committee's ex parte report could be sustained and whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for liquidation of the balance claim.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's first claim stood admitted for want of specific denial and was therefore payable.

Analysis: The pleadings did not specifically traverse the petitioner's assertion that the hotel had been hired for accommodation of protected persons during the relevant initial period. In the absence of a specific denial, the asserted facts were treated as admitted. The Court applied the settled rules of pleadings that a general denial is insufficient and that admitted facts need not be proved. On that basis, the petitioner's entitlement to payment for the first hiring period was accepted.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the bill verification committee's ex parte report could be sustained and whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for liquidation of the balance claim.

Analysis: The committee was constituted long after the hotel had been de-hired and the report was prepared without associating the petitioner or granting an effective opportunity to explain the occupancy records and claim calculations. The Court distinguished bill verification from mere fact-finding and held that where a claim is proposed to be reduced or rejected, procedural fairness requires notice and an opportunity to respond. The record also indicated that the petitioner had no effective control over the premises during occupation by protected persons and security personnel, weakening the respondents' later challenge to actual occupancy.

Conclusion: The committee report and the order constituting it were quashed, and the respondents were directed to liquidate the petitioner's claims.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the adverse verification process was set aside, and the petitioner was granted relief for payment of the admitted and verified dues.

Ratio Decidendi: Uncontroverted pleadings may amount to admission, and a decision reducing or rejecting a monetary claim through bill verification must comply with natural justice by affording the claimant a fair opportunity of hearing.

---