Summary
The son of a deceased tenant, who had admitted in his written statement that his father was the sole tenant, that the plaintiff was the owner and that rent was paid till May 2021, was decreed in eviction on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC because the five-year statutory tenancy of a dependent heir under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 had expired. The Supreme Court held that the admissions were clear and unequivocal, that the trial court and High Court rightly passed a decree on admission, and that the plea that the 1997 Act did not apply could not be raised for the first time, the defendant having himself invoked Section 7 of that Act.
Issues
- Whether the admissions in the defendant's written statement were sufficient for a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- Whether a son of a deceased tenant, claiming through his father, can continue as a tenant beyond five years from the tenant's death under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.
- Whether the plea that the 1997 Act did not govern the premises could be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(g), West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997On its plain reading, a dependent heir of a deceased tenant (other than the spouse, to whom the five-year limit does not apply) is included in the definition of tenant only for a period not exceeding five years from the tenant's death. The defendant, the son of the original tenant who died on 13.07.2016 and who claimed only through his father, therefore ceased to be a tenant before the suit of 2021 was filed. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- Order XII Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The Court traced the 1976 amendment and the Law Commission's 54th Report, and held that the rule enables judgment at any stage on admissions made in the pleadings or otherwise, orally or in writing, on application or suo motu; the power is discretionary and enabling, to be read with Order VIII Rule 5 and the proviso to Section 58 of the Evidence Act, so that the court may insist on proof even of admitted facts where it is unsafe to decree on admission. On the clear and unequivocal admissions here the courts below rightly decreed the suit. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 41, 42, 44)
- Sections 7(1) and 7(2), West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997The defendant's own reply to the Order XII Rule 6 application recorded that he had filed applications under these provisions for deposit of current and arrear rent; the Court treated this as clinching the point that the defendant could not contend that the 1997 Act did not apply to him. (¶¶ 45, 46)
Held
- Under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, a dependent heir of a deceased tenant, unless the widow, continues as a tenant only for five years from the tenant's death. Where the defendant son claims solely through his deceased father, and the written statement admits the father's death, the plaintiff's ownership and payment of rent only till May 2021, the factual ingredients of Section 2(g) stand admitted; the law need not be pleaded, and once the five-year period has expired nothing remains to be adjudicated unless an independent right is claimed. (¶¶ 9, 13, 17, 18, 44)
- Order XII Rule 6 CPC, as amended in 1976, permits the court at any stage, on application or of its own motion, to give judgment on admissions of fact made in the pleadings or otherwise, whether oral or written, express or implied, and whether made before or during the suit; its object is to enable a party to obtain a speedy judgment to the extent of the admitted claim, and sub-rule (2) makes it imperative that a decree be drawn up on such judgment. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42)
- The power under Order XII Rule 6 is enabling, discretionary and permissive, as the word 'may' shows, and cannot be reduced to a rigid rule; read with Order VIII Rule 5 CPC and the proviso to Section 58 of the Evidence Act, the court is not bound to grant relief merely on the defendant's admission and may refuse judgment and insist on proof where it is unsafe to decree on admission or where the questions cannot conveniently be decided at that stage. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30, 31, 40)
- A plea that the 1997 Act does not govern the tenancy, never raised before the trial court or the High Court, cannot be entertained for the first time in the Supreme Court; in any event the defendant's own applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of that Act for deposit of rent belie the plea. (¶¶ 45, 46)
Result
Special leave petition dismissed; decree of eviction on admission affirmed by the Calcutta High Court in FAT No. 7 of 2024 upheld. The Registry to circulate the order to all High Courts for circulation to their district judiciary.