PANKAJ MADAN Vs. B P SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assails order dated 03.10.2011 whereby application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC filed by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit, was dismissed. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for possession against the respondent/defendant in respect of suit premises, alleging the respondent to be in unauthorized possession thereof. It was his case that the respondent/defendant was allowed to stay in the suit premises sometime in the year 2002 for a short period, but despite being requested to vacate the same, sometime in the middle of year 2002, he has refused to vacate, and as such, he is in unauthorized possession of the suit premises. It was alleged that the respondent/defendant is a bare licencee, and the same having been revoked, he was liable to be evicted therefrom.

(2.) IT was averred that the petitioner/plaintiff was entitled to decree of possession of the premises. Said application of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed by the Ld. ADJ, Karkardooma District Courts vide his impugned order dated 03.10.2011, which is under challenge in the instant petition.

(3.) IT is settled law that as per Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, the decree of the relief sought by the plaintiff, can only be passed when the defendant either in the pleadings or otherwise, orally or in writing, has admitted certain facts, based on which the judgment can be pronounced and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff.