Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Decree Where Defendant Made Clear Admissions; Judgment on Admission Applied Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard a Special Leave Petition filed by the son of a deceased tenant challenging the Calcutta High Court's dismissal of his appeal and the eviction decree rendered by the City Civil Court, which had been entered on the basis of admissions and by applying Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code in a title suit for recovery of possession.

The Court dismissed the petition and upheld the High Court’s conclusion that clear and unequivocal admissions in the defendant’s written statement entitled the plaintiff to a decree on admission. The Court reiterated that Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 conferred a limited five-year statutory tenancy on dependent heirs and that, having regard to the pleadings, the defendant fell within that category and the statutory period had expired. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “We are of the view having regard to the clear and unequivocal admission made by the defendant in his written statement, the High Court committed no error much less any error of law in decreeing the suit applying Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.” The Court further noted that “The provisions of Rule 6 are enabling, discretionary and permissive. They are not mandatory, obligatory or peremptory.”

Background: The dispute arose when the owner instituted Title Suit No. 1068 of 2021 for recovery of possession and mesne profits against the defendant, who claimed tenancy through his father, the deceased regular tenant Ranjan Ghosh. Ranjan Ghosh died on July 13, 2016. The owner served a notice on July 20, 2018 informing the defendant that any right as a dependent heir under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 would subsist only for a period not exceeding five years from the date of death. The defendant received the notice and later filed a written statement in which he admitted several material facts, including that his father was the sole tenant and that rent had been paid to the plaintiff until May 2021.

Relying on those admissions, the plaintiff sought judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The defendant opposed the application, contending that admissions must be proved and that material issues required a full trial; he also indicated pendency of applications under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act. The trial court granted judgment on admission and decreed eviction. The High Court (Calcutta) dismissed the defendant’s appeal, holding that the pleadings contained "sufficient ingredients to bring the defendant within the fold of Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act" and that the five-year period had expired prior to institution of the suit; the High Court affirmed the exercise of discretion to pass a decree under Order XII Rule 6 and granted the defendant three months to vacate with a stay of execution for that period.

Before the Supreme Court counsel argued that Section 2(g) did not apply to the petitioner; the Court observed that this contention had not been raised before the High Court and that the petitioner’s own pleadings referred to proceedings under the 1997 Act, undermining the new submission. The Supreme Court reviewed the legislative history and precedents on Order XII Rule 6, noting its object to enable speedy adjudication on admitted claims and that the rule authorized a court to pronounce judgment suo motu or on application. Having found the admissions clear and unconditional, the Court found no error in the courts below in decreeing the suit. The petition was dismissed. The Registry was directed to circulate the order to all High Courts and district judiciaries. The High Court’s interim timetable (three months to vacate with stay of execution for that period) remained as part of the record of the decree.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 467 (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9975 of 2025; Diary No. 8323 of 2025) Case Title: Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Naryan Jaiswal Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ramnath Jha, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the order