Deciding Authority : Supreme Court of India
Bench : Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri
Date of Judgement : 04/01/2000
Facts : The father of the appellant(Landlord), Late Chockalingam who was the owner, let out the shops on rent bearing – Door No.19 to T.Subramaniam @ Rs.75/- per month; Door No.20 @ Rs.250/- per month to M. Sengottaiyan who died during the pendency of the proceedings (his legal representatives are brought on record as respondents 2 to 6), and Door No.21 to Nachimuthu @ Rs.200/- per month. They are said to be in occupation for the last 25 to 40 years. On June 8, 1978 the said Chockalingam executed release deed (Exhibit P-4) in favour of the appellant and thus he became the absolute owner and landlord of the premises. The landlord claimed that the rent of the shops, Door Nos.19, 20 and 21, was enhanced to Rs.400/-, Rs.850/- and Rs.700/- respectively.He issued notice to the said three tenants stating that the premises were required for demolition and reconstruction and asking them to vacate the same. They replied that he was only a co-owner as the original landlord (Chockalingam) died leaving behind three daughters and a widow also, therefore, he could not seek eviction for demolition and reconstruction of the premises.
Judgement : By a common order dated November 17, 1997, the High Court set aside the order of eviction passed against the respondents. Mr.R.Venkataramani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, challenged the order of the High Court on both the points and submitted that as the plea of deposit of rent in the court of the Rent Controller by the respondents was rejected, they committed willful default in payment of admitted rent for the months of May, June, July and August, 1987 and as such the High Court erred in setting aside the well considered findings of the lower authorities.The impugned order non-suited the appellant in regard to eviction of the respondents under Section 10(2)(i) and (vii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960. In view of the findings of the Appellate Authority regarding the quantum of rent payable by the respondents that the amount as pleaded by the respondents, namely, Rs.75/-, Rs.250/- and Rs.200/- was found correct and regarding the ground on which eviction is sought recorded on the basis of the pleadings and the statement of the appellant himself that the respondents had failed to tender the correct rent to the appellant and thereby committed willful default, the High Court is right in holding that no willful default was committed by the respondents in payment of rent. There is, therefore, no illegality in the order under challenge on the question of wilful default in payment of rent by the respondents. It was next contended by Mr.Venkataramani that the respondents had denied the title of the appellant and on that point the Rent Controller held against the respondents, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, so the High Court ought not to have interfered with that finding of fact. A plain reading of clause (vii), noted above, makes it clear that to invoke this clause twin requirements, namely, – (i) denial of title of the landlord or claim of a right of permanent tenancy by the tenant and (ii) such denial or claim is not bona fide, have to be established by a landlord. To constitute denial of title of the landlord, a tenant should renounce his character as tenant and set up title or right inconsistent with the relationship of landlord and tenant, either in himself or in a third person.
In the case of derivative title of the landlord, in the absence of a notice of transfer of title in favour of the landlord or attornment of tenancy, a tenants assertion that the landlord is a co-owner does not amount to denial of his title, unless the tenant has also renounced his relationship as a tenant. The principle of equity that a person cannot approbate and reprobate finds legislative recognition in Section 116 of the Evidence Act and Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act. It is in the light of this principle, we have to construe clause (vii) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act. Further, it cannot be said that the respondents denied the title of the appellant, much less can it be said that such a denial was not bonafide.
HELD : The appeal is dismissed.
By Tejasv Anand , IV th Year , Amity Law School , Delhi .
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS