ANIL KHANNA Vs. GEETA KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application the Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendant No. 4 in view of the admissions made in the written statement filed by the Defendant No. 4. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant No. 4 has admitted the following facts:

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Plaintiff contends that by the present application the Plaintiff is not challenging the issues framed but seeks judgment on admission. A party has to plead the facts specifically and airy - fairy defence is not permissible. If the facts are not specifically stated regarding tenancy then no issue could have been framed. Reliance is placed on D.M. Deshpande and others vs. Janardhan Kashinath Kadam (dead) by LRs and others, AIR 1999 SC 1464. It is further submitted that the Defendant No. 4 has admitted that the Plaintiff is a co -sharer with the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and thus no valid lease could have been executed by the Defendants 1 to 3. As there is no valid tenancy, the Defendant No. 4 is liable to vacate the suit premises. The right of tenancy cannot be raised on a vague plea of settlement or a contrary plea of being co -shares. Relying on Paam Antibiotics Ltd. vs. Sudesh Madhok, 186 2012 DLT 652 it is contended that laconic pleadings are insufficient for the purposes of raising an issue. In view of the rights of co -sharers, the common property cannot be alienated or put in tenancy without the consent of all the co -sharer. Reliance is placed on I. Gouri and others vs. Dr. C.H. Ibrahim and another, AIR 1980 Kerala 94; Sant Ram Nagina Ram vs. Daya Ram Nagina Ram and others, AIR 1961 Punjab 528 and Chhedi Lal and another vs. Chhotey Lal, AIR (38) 1951 Allahabad 199.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.