<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (5) TMI 940 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286037</link>
    <description>A decree for possession on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC requires a clear, unambiguous and unequivocal admission that leaves no issue for trial, including on termination of tenancy. Because the written statement disputed expiry of tenancy and specifically denied determination of tenancy, mere admission of the landlord-tenant relationship and service of notice was insufficient to justify judgment on admission. The absence of a rejoinder did not turn the pleadings into a binding admission. Authorities cited by the respondents were distinguished on the basis that they involved unequivocal admissions on their facts, and the decree on admission was held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2020 13:02:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=603359" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 940 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286037</link>
      <description>A decree for possession on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC requires a clear, unambiguous and unequivocal admission that leaves no issue for trial, including on termination of tenancy. Because the written statement disputed expiry of tenancy and specifically denied determination of tenancy, mere admission of the landlord-tenant relationship and service of notice was insufficient to justify judgment on admission. The absence of a rejoinder did not turn the pleadings into a binding admission. Authorities cited by the respondents were distinguished on the basis that they involved unequivocal admissions on their facts, and the decree on admission was held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286037</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>