Court Can Pass Judgment On The Basis Of Admissions Made By Parties Not Only On Pleadings But Also Dehors Pleadings: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that courts are empowered to pass judgments based on admissions made by parties, even if such admissions are dehors the pleadings.

Interpreting the term “otherwise” in the context of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that statements recorded under Order 10 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, whether made in documents or during proceedings, can be treated as admissions if they clarify the real dispute between the parties.

Such admissions, the Court emphasized, are conclusive and may form the sole basis for a judgment.

"If one of the parties' statement is recorded under O. 10, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same is also a statement which elucidates matters in controversy. Any admission in such statement is relevant not only for the purpose of finding out the real dispute between the parties but also to ascertain as to whether or not any dispute or controversy exists between the parties. Admission if any is made by a party in the statement recorded, would be conclusive against him and the Court can proceed to pass judgment on the basis of the admission made therein," the Bench observed.

The Court while dismissing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) arising from a Calcutta High Court judgment, has upheld the eviction of a tenant's son who continued in possession of the suit premises beyond the statutory period of five years after the death of the original tenant. It refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below, both of which had granted a decree for eviction under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on the basis of clear admissions made by the defendant in his written statement.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a title suit (No. 1068 of 2021) filed by the original plaintiff, the lawful owner of the premises, before the Vth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta. The plaintiff sought recovery of possession and mesne profits from the defendant, who is the son of late Ranjan Ghosh, the original tenant. Ranjan Ghosh passed away on 13.07.2016, and the defendant continued to reside in the premises, claiming tenancy rights.

The plaintiff served a notice on 20.07.2018 asserting that under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the defendant, not being a widow of the deceased tenant, could only inherit the tenancy for a limited period of five years. The notice further clarified that post 13.07.2021, the defendant could no longer claim tenancy rights and was in unauthorized occupation of the premises. Despite receiving the notice, the defendant failed to provide a satisfactory response.

Significantly, the defendant, in his written statement, admitted that Ranjan Ghosh was the sole tenant and that rent was paid to the plaintiff until May 2021. On the basis of these admissions, the trial court decreed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, holding that the admissions sufficed to establish the plaintiff’s entitlement to possession.

Calcutta High Court's Observations

The High Court, in Appeal, affirmed the trial court’s findings and ruled that the factual averments in the written statement constituted sufficient ingredients to attract Section 2(g) of the 1997 Act. It emphasized that once the five-year statutory period expired and no independent right of tenancy was established by the defendant, he was to be treated as a trespasser. The High Court concluded that a full-fledged trial was unnecessary in view of the admissions and dismissed the appeal, granting three months’ time to vacate the premises.

Apex Court's Observations

Dismissing the SLP, the Court concurred with the lower courts and reaffirmed that the defendant, being the son of the deceased tenant, could only avail himself of the limited statutory protection of five years under Section 2(g). The Court also held that the trial court rightly exercised its discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to decree the suit on the basis of unequivocal admissions.

"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 Bench held.

Cause Title: Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Naryan Jaiswal [Neutral Citation No. 2025 INSC 467]

Click here to read/download the Order