Calcutta High Court: While deciding whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a part decree based on the admissions made by the defendants in their written statement regarding the period of occupancy and renewal of the lease, a single-judge bench comprising of Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee,* J., deemed the trial court’s consideration of extraneous documents regarding Thika Tenancy improper and emphasised on the need to base the decision solely on admissions made in the pleadings. The Court set aside the trial court’s decision and directed a rehearing of the plaintiffs’ application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).
The instant matter involves a dispute over the renewal of a lease agreement dated 29-04-1967, initially for 30 years with a fixed monthly rent. The lease contained a renewal clause for a further 21 years. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to request renewal of the lease and thus were served with a notice to quit, demanding the defendants vacate the premises upon expiry of the lease. The defendants, while admitting the execution of the lease, filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration for renewal of the lease for another 21 years, along with other reliefs. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking a part decree based on admissions in the written statement regarding possession. The defendants contested, arguing that the issue of renewal and their status as Thika tenants were disputed matters requiring trial. The lower court, considering extraneous factors and documents raised by a third party, rejected the plaintiff’s application, emphasising the need for trial on issues of Thika tenancy and maintainability of the suit.
The Court noted that the defendants’ admissions in their written statement regarding the period of occupancy and renewal of the lease form the primary basis for the plaintiffs’ application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The Court asserted that the trial court’s decision was based on extraneous considerations beyond the pleadings and admitted facts. The Court reiterated that while considering an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, only the admissions made in the pleadings are relevant, and any fact not pleaded cannot be considered. The Court set aside the lower court’s decision and directed the trial court to reconsider the plaintiff’s application under Order XII Rule 6, ensuring both parties have an opportunity to contest the matter, and to provide a reasoned decision.
[Shree Shree Iswar Satyanarayanji v. Sarad Kumar Burman, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 2506, order dated 14-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Animesh Paul and Ms. Haandika Rajdeev, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, Mr. Ayan Kumar Baral and Ms. Saswati Sengupta, Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite Parties
