KARAM KAPAHI & Ors. v. MIS. LAL CHAND PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST & Anr.

Judgment

4 S.C.R. 422 A B KARAM KAPAHI & OTHERS v. MIS. LAL CHAND PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST & ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 3048 of 2010) APRIL 7, 2010 [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: c Article 136 - Suit by Trust (lessor) against Club (lessee) seeking termination of club's lease for non-payment of rent - Suit by Club questioning title of Trust - Admission by Club in the written statement that there was execution of lease deed 0 and non-payment of rent - Application u/s. 114 of 1882 Act, by Club, seeking relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent, in suit filed by Trust- Trust filing application u/O. 12 r. 6 for passing judgment on admission - High Court decreeing the suit for possession since clear admission by club about E non-payment of rent and directing the Club to hand over vacant possession - Challenge to - Held: Controversy is between the pa1ties on an admission of non-payment of rent, judgment can be rendered on admission by court - Court can consider the stand of the Club in its petition u/s. 114 in pronouncing judgment on admission in view of clear words 'pleading or otherwise' used therein - Stand of the Club while questioning the title of the Trust is inconsistent with its stand in the application uls. 114 - Club approbates and reprobates which is not legally permissible - Doctrine of Election is applicable - Suit by Club questioning title of the Trust was G dismissed and nothing on record to show that it has been restored - Club is prima facie stopped from challenging the title of the Trust - Thus, Club not entitled to any equitable It relief under Article 136 having regard to its conduct - F H 422 KARAM KAPAHI & ORS. v. LAL CHAND PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST 423 adopted dilatory tactics in prolonging the litigation - Thus, order of High Court upheld - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. 12 r. 6 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s. 114 - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 116 - Doctrines. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Or. 12 r. 6 - Judgment on admission - Object of - Held: Is to give the plaintiff a right to speedy judgment - Under 0. 12 r 6 admissions can be inferred from facts and circumstances of the case. Doctrines/Principles: Doctrine of Election - Applicability of. Principle of 'approbate and reprobate' - Applicability of. A B c D E The respondent-Charitable trust had leased out certain property to the Club-lessee for 25 years. The trust and some of its members filed a suit against the Club seeking term.ination of club's lease for non-payment of lease rent by the Club. The trust had issued several letters as also legal notices calling upon the Club to pay the rent but the Club did not give reply. Thereafter, the trust by a legal notice terminated the tenancy of the Club. The Club filed a suit seeking a declaration to the effect that the trust has no right, title and interest in the suit premises; for cancellation and revocation of the sub-lease and restrain the trust from claiming and demanding any lease rent from the Club. The trust filed written statement. The application as well as the suit were dismissed for default. The Club filed its application for restoration of the G suit and the same was kept pending. In the suit filed by the trust, the Club filed its written statement. It admitted that there was an execution of sub-lease between the . parties though the title of the trust over the suit property · was disputed; that it had not paid rent and was ready to F deposit the same. The Club filed an application praying H 424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 4 S.C.R. A that the trust be restrained from receiving the lease money. High Court dismissed the same and directed the Club to pay the arrears of rent. The said order became final. However, the Club did not comply with the direction given by the Single Judge. The Club filed an application B u/s. 114 of the Transfer of Property Act seeking relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent, in the suit filed by the Trust. Thereafter, the Trust filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing a judgment on admission. The trust stated that in the written statement c filed by the Club, the club admitted the relationship of lessor and lessee; rent being above Rs.3500/- p.m.; a notice of termination of lease of the Club has been duly served on the Club and non-payment of rent by the Club, were also admitted. Trial judge held that the Club was not entitled to relief u/s. 114 of the Transfer of Property Act; and that since there is clear admission by the club about non~payment of rent, the plaintiff-trust is entitled to a decree for possession in respect of the entire suit property. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal and directed the Club to hand over vacant possession in E respect of the suit property to the Trust. Even after disposal of appeal, the club took several steps for delaying the execution of the decree. Applications were filed and were dismissed. Hence the present appeals, one by some members of the Club and other by the Club. F This Court stayed the operation of the High Court's 0 judgment. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The principles behind Order 12 Rule 6 of G CPC are to give the plaintiff a right to speedy judgment. Under this Rule either party may get rid of so much of the rival claims about 'which there is no controversy'. The thrust of the amendment to Order 12 Rule 6 by the Amendment Act of 1976 is that in an appropriate case, a H KARAM KAPAHI & ORS. v. LAL CHAND PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST 425 party, on the admission of the other party, can press for A judgment, as a matter of legal right. However, the Court always retains its discretion in the matter of pronouncing judgment. [Paras 46 and 48] [443-G; 444-D] Thorp vs. Holdsworth (1876) 3 Chancery Division 637, B referred to.

1.2. If the provision of Order 12 Rule 1 is compared with Order 12 Rule 6, it becomes clear that the provision of Order 12 Rule 6 is wider in as much as the provision of order 12 Rule 1 is limited to admission by 'pleading or C otherwise in writing' but in Order 12 Rule 6 the expression 'or otherwise' is much wider in view of the words used therein namely: 'admission of fact, either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing'. Under Order 12 Rule 6 admissions can be inferred from D facts and circumstances of the case. Admissions in answer to interrogatories are also covered under this Rule. In the instant case, where the controversy is between the parties on an admission of non-payment of rent, judgment can be rendered on admission by Court. E [Paras 49, 50 and 55) [444-E-H; 445-G] Shikharchand and Ors. vs. Mst. Bari Bai and Ors. AIR · 1974 Madhya Pradesh 75, approved. Charanjit Lal Mehra and Ors. v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan F