Rajesh Mitra @ Rajesh Kumar Mitra vs Karnani Properties Ltd. 2024 INSC 719- Order XII Rule 6 CPC – West Bengal Tenancy Premises Act

Code Of Civil Procedure,1908; Order XII Rule 6 –Order XII Rule 6 is an enabling provision conferring wide discretionary powers on the courts which cannot be claimed by any party as a matter of right- unless there is a clear, unambiguous, unequivocal and unconditional admission, courts should not exercise their discretion under the Rule because judgment on admissions is without a trial which may even preclude a party to challenge the matter on merits in the court of appeal. The provision of law, which is meant for the expeditious disposal of appropriate cases, should therefore be cautiously exercised and it should never come in the way of any defendant denying him the valuable right of contesting the claim -There cannot be an admission against law. Whether a particular statement amounts to an “admission” will depend on the fact of each case. (Para 4-6)

Interpretation of Statutes – The enforcement of a new statute ipso facto will not take away the rights already accrued under a repealed statute, unless this intention is reflected in the new statute (Para 17)- Courts can, and must, differ from the literal meaning of words if the reading of any provision provides absurd results. (Para 18) Statutory laws operate from the date of their enforcement i.e., prospectively. In case the legislature intends to make a law retrospective then such an intention of the legislature must be shown clearly and unambiguously in the statute itself. (Para 21)

Doctrine of Merger -The dismissal of an SLP at the admission stage before issuance of notice, with a non-speaking order, does not mean that this Court has affirmed the law laid down by impugned order. (Para 14)

West Bengal Tenancy Premises Act, 1997 -West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956-There is no clarity in the 1997 Act to suggest that it extinguishes the rights of all tenants (who inherited tenancy rights under Old Act) retrospectively [In this case, the Court held that appellants’ tenancy did not expire in the year 2006, by the 30 introduction of 1997 Act, in the absence of a clear and unequivocal intention in the 1997 Act to have a retrospective operation]