Judgment on clear admissions under Order XII Rule 6 remains available at any stage.

The respondents/plaintiffs had leased the basement and ground floor of property no. 1/113, Block-1, Ware Housing Scheme, Village Basai Darapur, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, to the appellant-company for commercial purposes under a registered lease deed dated 17 February 2021, for the period from 1 February 2021 to 31 January 2025.

The lease required payment of monthly rent in advance and permitted termination upon default in payment for two consecutive months.

Alleging non-payment of rent for January and February 2024, the plaintiffs issued a termination notice dated 19 February 2024 and instituted a commercial suit for possession.

The defendant admitted the lease, the landlord–tenant relationship and the agreed rent, but denied default, asserting that post-dated cheques had been handed over to the plaintiffs.

The Trial Court struck off the defendant’s defence under the Delhi amendment to Order XV-A CPC for failure to pay admitted rent despite court directions.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XIII-A CPC for summary judgment.

Although the Trial Court held that the application under Order XIII-A was not barred merely because evidence had not commenced, it treated the application, at the plaintiffs’ request, as one under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and decreed possession on the basis of admissions in the written statement.

Whether an application for summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC is maintainable after the case has been fixed for recording of evidence, even where formal issues have not been framed?

Whether the Trial Court could treat the plaintiffs’ Order XIII-A application as one under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and pass a decree on admissions?

Whether admissions contained in a written statement remain part of the judicial record and may be relied upon after the defendant’s defence has been struck off under Order XV-A CPC?

Order XIII-A Rule 2 CPC permits an application for summary judgment after service of summons but prohibits such application after the Court has framed issues; under Order XV-A governing case-management hearings in commercial suits, pending Order XIII-A applications are to be heard and decided before framing of issues.

However, Order XII Rule 6 CPC empowers the Court, either on an application or suo motu, to pronounce judgment at any stage where there are clear, categorical and unconditional admissions; unlike Order XIII-A, its operation is not confined to the pre-issues stage.

The Court relied on Surya Food and Agro Limited v. Om Traders and Another, (2023) 7 High Court Cases (Del) 350, for the distinction that a summary judgment under Order XIII-A cannot be passed suo motu, and on Pushpa & Ors. v. Dayawati & Ors., 2026 INSC 603, for the requirement of clear admissions under Order XII Rule 6.

Striking off the defence under the Delhi-specific rent-deposit provisions of Order XV-A operates prospectively and does not retrospectively remove pleadings and documents already filed from the judicial record.

The High Court held that the Order XIII-A application itself was not maintainable because, although no formal issues had been framed, the case had already proceeded beyond the case-management stage and had been listed for recording the plaintiffs’ evidence.

Under Order XIII-A Rule 2 read with Order XV-A, an application for summary judgment must be dealt with during the case-management stage and cannot be introduced once the matter has reached the evidence stage.

Nevertheless, this defect did not invalidate the decree because the plaintiffs expressly requested, and the Trial Court was independently competent, to treat the matter under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

The defendant had admitted the execution of the registered lease, the landlord–tenant relationship and the agreed rent, while the record also showed persistent non-payment despite repeated directions to pay arrears.

These admissions were sufficiently clear for a possession decree.

The striking-off of the defence did not erase the written statement retrospectively; therefore, the Trial Court was entitled to rely on the admissions contained in it.

The Court also clarified that the Order XV-A provision used to strike off the defence for non-payment of rent is distinct from the Order XV-A introduced for case-management hearings in commercial disputes.

The High Court held that the Order XIII-A application was not maintainable at the evidence stage, but the Trial Court validly converted and considered it under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

Since the defendant’s pleadings contained clear admissions regarding the lease and tenancy, and the record established prolonged non-payment of rent, the decree directing the defendant to hand over possession of the basement and ground floor of the suit property was upheld.

All pending applications were also dismissed.