ORDER : 1. The defendant before the trial Court has challenged the order on I.A.7 filed under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC praying for passing of a judgment to dismiss the suit. 2. The defendant is stated to be the tenant under the plaintiff and the plaintiff having filed the suit for ejection, defendant submits that after partial cross-examination in light of the plaintiff having made certain statements which would indicate that the plaintiff did not have title, the suit was liable to be dismissed. It is contended that judgment could be passed taking note of the statements referred to in para 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, which statements according to the defendant amount to admission that the plaintiff did not have title. 3. The said application filed under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC was opposed by way of objections filed by plaintiff who has controverted the contentions raised and has asserted that the plaintiff had title to the property and refers to the partition deed dated 07.07.2007 and the memorandum of family settlement between the plaintiff’s mother and plaintiff’s brother dated 09.09.2008. It is further contended that there are no admission that the plaintiff did not have title to the property as asserted by the defendant and no case is made out for invoking Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC. 4. The trial Court after hearing both the sides has rejected the application and while doing so has at para 12 of the order referred to entries in the name of plaintiff’s father as coowner in the RTC of the year 1975-76 to 1978-79 and 2016-17, Mutation extracts and the Index of Land, and has observed that evidence was not yet completed and as the defendant had admitted the plaintiff’s title in the written statement, it was premature to consider the application of the defendant at the present stage of the suit. 5. Heard both the sides. The case as made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plaintiff is a land grabber and is not entitled for a decree as sought for. 6. 5. Heard both the sides. The case as made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plaintiff is a land grabber and is not entitled for a decree as sought for. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would contend that the petitioner is estopped from denying title of the landlord in light of Ex.P.2 which is the lease deed and Ex.P.4 which is the reply notice, wherein the petitioner has admitted that he was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.9,000/and had paid advance. 7. The question that falls for consideration is, whether Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC could be invoked in the present case. 8. Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC relates to the decree on the basis of admission. The plaintiff has asserted that he is the owner and filed the suit for ejection. The defendant has executed lease deed as per Ex.P.2 and also issued a reply notice at Ex.P.4 wherein the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted. Insofar as rejection of the suit is concerned, in light of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, the defendant is estopped from contending otherwise as regards the tenancy relationship, the contentions raised by the defendant are beyond the scope of an enquiry in an ejectment suit. It is not as if the defendant has been paying rent to any other person. Having admitted the relationship, in a suit for ejectment, the Court need not traverse beyond the evidence of relationship as is evidenced in the present case on the basis of the lease deed at Ex.P.2 and the reply notice at Ex.P.4. It is also to be noted that the trial Court has also referred to certain entries in the name of petitioner’s father. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the facts relating to alleged absence of title in the plaintiff has come to his notice after cross-examination of the plaintiff partially and hence, application was filed taking the stand as made out in the application filed Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC at a belated stage. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the facts relating to alleged absence of title in the plaintiff has come to his notice after cross-examination of the plaintiff partially and hence, application was filed taking the stand as made out in the application filed Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC at a belated stage. It is to be noticed that the said discovery of the alleged absence of title would in no way permit the petitioner to deny the title of the landlord under whom he has entered into possession and has been paying rents and accordingly the said explanation for a belated application also is not acceptable. 10. Taking note of the above, no ground is made out to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. The trial Court to expedite the trial taking note of the seniority of the present matter vis-à-vis the other matters, and also the administrative circular No.06/2018 dated 06.08.2018.