Admissions in Civil Suits Are Binding and Foreclose Denial of Tenancy Rights: Bombay High Court

Tenancy Rights Are Not Extinguished By Mortgage to Tenant, But Only Held in Abeyance: In a significant pronouncement Bombay High Court reaffirmed that clear admissions made by parties in civil suits regarding tenancy are binding and foreclose any later denial of such tenancy rights. Justice Sandeep V. Marne, writing for the Court, held that once an admission of cultivation by a tenant is made in earlier pleadings, the landlord cannot subsequently disown such admission in tenancy proceedings. The Court also clarified that a mortgage created by a landlord in favor of a tenant does not extinguish the tenant's rights; rather, under Section 25A of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the tenancy merely stands suspended during the mortgage and revives upon redemption.

The origins of the dispute trace back to a 1935 Kabulayat Bhade Patta (lease deed) under which Vishnu Limba Kadam was inducted as a tenant. His successors continued cultivating the land, with their possession duly recorded in revenue records. In 1949, a Deed of Mortgage by Conditional Sale was executed by the landowner in favor of Kadam’s family and a third party. Subsequently, when the original owners sought to redeem the mortgage and recover possession, the successors of Vishnu Kadam asserted their tenancy rights under the Tenancy Act.

The Respondents, the landlords, attempted to deny the existence of tenancy rights, arguing that the execution of the mortgage implied a surrender of tenancy. However, the Court noted that in a prior civil suit for redemption, the landlords had admitted that the Kadam family was cultivating the land as tenants.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne underscored the legal sanctity of admissions made in judicial proceedings, quoting the Supreme Court to observe, "Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions...stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. Judicial admissions are fully binding and constitute a waiver of proof." Referring to the classic judgment in Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam, the Court asserted that where an admission is clear, unambiguous, and deliberate, it dispenses with the need for further proof.

Dealing with the effect of the mortgage, the Court explained that Section 25A of the Tenancy Act specifically protects tenancy rights when a mortgage is created by a landlord in favor of a tenant. The Court observed, "The tenancy rights remain merely in abeyance during the currency of the mortgage and are revived upon the redemption of the mortgage." It categorically rejected the argument that a mortgage deed results in the extinction of tenancy rights.

The Court ruled that insofar as Gat Nos.28/1 to 28/4 were concerned, the tenancy rights stood fully established through revenue records and admissions in pleadings. As regards Gat No.31, however, since possession was transferred to a third party mortgagee, the Court upheld the finding that tenancy rights were not proved.

Emphasizing the binding nature of admissions, Justice Marne observed, "It becomes difficult to believe that the Respondents can wriggle out of specific admissions given in the plaint filed in Regular Civil Suit No.65 of 1974 about the Kadam family cultivating the land as tenants." The Court further stated that once a fact is admitted in pleadings, it is no longer open to a party to disown it unless the admission was made under mistake or misapprehension — neither of which was the case here.

The judgment also reiterates that temporary possession under a mortgage cannot displace the substantive right of tenancy which subsists independently and revives once the mortgage is redeemed. "The status of the tenant and his right to cultivation cannot be extinguished merely by the act of the landlord creating a mortgage," the Court emphasized.

The Bombay High Court restored the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer recognizing the tenancy rights of the Petitioners in respect of Gat Nos.28/1 to 28/4. By enforcing admissions made in earlier civil proceedings and by affirming the protective mantle of Section 25A, the Court has strengthened the position of tenants against arbitrary denial of rights by landlords seeking to exploit technicalities. The judgment stands as a powerful reaffirmation that admissions made in judicial proceedings are solemn declarations that courts must enforce, and that the law shields tenants from being dislodged through artificial arguments surrounding mortgages.

Date of Decision: 25 April 2025