Order XII Rule 6 decree unsustainable absent clear, categorical, and unequivocal admissions on triable issues.

The Plaintiff (Respondent) filed a commercial suit for possession, arrears of rent, and mesne profits regarding property No. D-97, Garhi Mendu, Delhi

The Plaintiff relied on a registered lease deed dated 18.11.2022, stipulating a monthly rent of Rs. 1,60,000/- for five years

The Plaintiff alleged the Defendant (Appellant) defaulted on rent from July 2023 and used the premises for illegal activities, leading to a termination notice dated 17.10.2023

The Defendant contested the suit, claiming a subsequent notarized lease deed dated 23.11.2022 superseded the first, reducing the rent to Rs. 50,000/-

The Commercial Court, via the impugned order dated 03.06.2024, invoked Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC to pass a partial decree for possession based on perceived admissions regarding the landlady’s right to terminate for non-payment

1. Whether the Commercial Court was justified in invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC to decree the suit for possession based on alleged admissions

2. Whether the existence of a second, notarized lease deed and the denial of rent default created triable issues that precluded a judgment on admissions

The Court applied Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which empowers a court to deliver judgment at any stage where admissions of fact are made, either in pleadings or otherwise

The power is discretionary and requires admissions to be "clear, categorical, unequivocal and unconditional"

If a defense is not sham or illusory and raises bona fide triable issues, the court should not short-circuit the trial process

The High Court observed that for a decree under Order XII Rule 6, there must be no ambiguity in the admissions. In the present case, the court found significant factual disputes regarding the very foundation of the tenancy: the rate of rent (Rs. 1,60,000 vs Rs. 50,000) and which of the two lease deeds governed the relationship

The Court noted that the Defendant specifically denied the allegation of default and pleaded that the Plaintiff had refused to accept rent, leading the Defendant to deposit it under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act

The Court reasoned that since the validity of the termination, the actual rate of rent, and the intent behind the second lease deed were contested, these constituted "triable issues" requiring evidence

Consequently, the Commercial Court erred by treating inconsistent statements as "clear admissions" to bypass a full trial

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Impugned Order dated 03.06.2024. The matter was remitted to the Commercial Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, with directions for the parties to appear on 04.08.2026