Order 12 Rule 6 CPC | Disputed Rent Components & Relationship Status Bar Judgment on Admission: Calcutta High Court

“The power under Order 12 Rule 6 is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right; it applies only where admissions are clear, unequivocal, and categorical”— In a seminal ruling, the Calcutta High Court, comprising Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, dismissed a civil revisional application seeking summary eviction, holding that disputed questions regarding the nature of possession and the components of rent cannot be decided without a full trial.

The Core Controversy: Licensee or Tenant?

The dispute arose from an eviction suit where the petitioner (plaintiff) claimed the opposite party was a "licensee" running a restaurant at a monthly fee of ₹25,000. The petitioner sought a judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), arguing that the defendant’s own "rent collection book" showed payments exceeding ₹10,000 per month.

The legal significance of the ₹10,000 threshold is pivotal: under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, commercial tenancies with rent exceeding ₹10,000 are governed by the Transfer of Property Act (TPA), allowing for easier eviction via a Section 106 notice. The petitioner argued that since the defendant paid sums totaling ₹19,000 (including maintenance and electricity), the protection of the Tenancy Act was ousted, and the eviction should follow summarily.

“Maintenance & Electricity Charges Are Not Automatically ‘Rent’: Intention Matters”

Justice Bhattacharyya categorically rejected the petitioner's attempt to aggregate maintenance and electricity charges with the basic rent to bypass the Tenancy Act at the preliminary stage. Relying on the Division Bench ruling in Rajshri Productions Pvt. Ltd. vs. T.E. Thomson & Co. Ltd., the Court observed that whether variable components like electricity or maintenance form part of the "rent" depends entirely on the intention and conduct of the parties at the time of creating the tenancy.

The Court noted that the defendant specifically pleaded a tenancy at ₹4,000 per month, claiming the additional payments were separate charges. The Court held, “Any amount or a component which is variable in nature cannot be regarded as a component of the rent even if it is paid along with the basic rent.” Consequently, a trial is necessary to determine if the parties intended these charges to be part of the rent.

“Plaintiff Cannot Blow Hot and Cold: Section 106 TPA Requires Admitted Tenancy”

A significant procedural aspect of the ruling addressed the petitioner's reliance on the service of a Notice to Quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioner argued that since the service of notice was admitted, eviction should follow.

However, the Court exposed a fatal contradiction in the petitioner’s argument. The petitioner had filed the suit claiming a Licensor-Licensee relationship, yet sought relief based on statutory provisions (Section 106 TPA) that apply strictly to Landlord-Tenant relationships. The Court held that the presumption of termination of lease under Section 106 applies only when the tenancy relationship is admitted. Since the petitioner denied the tenancy (claiming license) and the defendant denied the license (claiming tenancy), the core jural relationship remained a "disputed fact" unsuitable for summary judgment.

Discretion Under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC

Citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rajiv Ghosh vs. Satya Narayan Jaiswal (2025) and Karan Kapoor vs. Madhuri Kumar (2022), the High Court reiterated that Order 12 Rule 6 is an enabling provision, not a mandatory one. The Court emphasized that a judgment on admission is a discretionary power to be exercised only when admissions are specific and clear.

In dismissing the revision petition, the Court affirmed the Trial Court’s decision, stating that mere entries in a notebook or the payment of maintenance charges do not constitute the "unequivocal admission" required to strip a defendant of their right to a trial.

Date of Decision: 28/11/2025