The High Court of Calcutta, while dismissing an appeal filed by the defendant against a judgment on admission passed by the Trial Court in a suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction, inter alia on the ground of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and arrear rents, held that the plaintiff/lessor’s money claim regarding arrear rents is independent of the component of the plaintiff's entitlement to get a decree for eviction ― interlinking the two is not supported by law.
Brief Facts:
The Respondent before this Court had filed a suit for eviction, inter alia on the ground of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and arrear rents. The learned Trial Judge proceeded on the premise that the defendant, in its written statement, had admitted the service of such notice dated January 17, 2019, and accordingly, proceeded to grant a decree of eviction under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Challenging the same, the defendant has preferred FAT 194 of 2020.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure placed reliance on the alleged admission of the defendant about service of a prior notice to quit dated September 22, 2018. He argued that apart from the defendant having not admitted the receipt/service of the said notice, even if there were to be such admission in the written statement, the same would not suffice to fetch the plaintiff a decree for eviction.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that in a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant whose tenancy is not protected under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, all that is required to be established by the plaintiff/landlord is the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the termination of the tenancy either by lapse of time or by notice served by the landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. So long as these two aspects are not in dispute, the court can pass a decree in terms of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Observations of the Court:
The court noted that the defendant, in its written statement, unambiguously admitted the service/receipt of the quit notice dated January 17, 2019. Further, there is no denial of receipt of the notice dated September 22, 2018, which is tantamount to an admission of the receipt of the said notice as well.
The Court observed that Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure is couched in a wide language, conferring expansive latitude on the court to pass a judgment on admission, not only if such admission finds a place in the pleading but also if such admission is made otherwise, whether orally or in writing and at any stage of the suit. The Court said that the plaintiff/lessor’s money claim regarding arrear rents is independent of the component of the plaintiff's entitlement to get a decree for eviction ― interlinking the two is not supported by law. The plaintiff need not wait till the final adjudication of arrear rents to have the defendant vacate the premises.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that the component of the impugned judgment and decree on admission directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises are upheld.
Case Title: M/s. Nautica Hospitality Consulting Private Limited vs. M/s. Signotron India Pvt. Ltd.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad
Case No.: FAT 194 of 2020
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Partha Pratim Roy
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Uday Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
