2012 (9) TMI 770 - SC - Indian Laws

Suit for recovery of possession from a tenant - Held that - In a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant whose tenancy is not protected under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, all that is required to be established by the plaintiff-landlord is the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the termination of the tenancy either by lapse of time or by notice served by the landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. So long as these two aspects are not in dispute the Court can pass a decree in terms of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC Considering the averments made in the plaint and the written statement clearly spell out an admission by the defendant that lease agreement dated 10th October 2001 was indeed executed between the parties. It is also evident that the monthly rent was settled at Rs.50,000/- which fact too is clearly admitted by the defendant although according to the defendant, the said amount represented rent for commercial use of the premises and not residential purposes as alleged by the plaintiff. Suffice it to say that the averments made in the written statement clearly accept the existence of the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties no matter the lease agreement was not duly registered. Whether the tenancy was for residential or commercial use of the property is wholly immaterial for the grant of a decree for possession - Thus as the premises in question is being used by the tenant for commercial purposes, thus the defendant is granted time till 31st December, 2012 to vacate the same on furnishing an undertaking in usual terms before this Court within four weeks from date of this Order.

Issues Involved:
1. Existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant.
2. Termination of tenancy by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
3. Validity of lease deed and its implications.
4. Estoppel under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act.
5. Structural changes made by the tenant and their relevance.
6. Challenge to the landlord's title based on prior orders by Revenue Authority.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Existence of Jural Relationship of Landlord and Tenant:
The trial court found that the jural relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted by both parties, as evidenced by the lease agreement dated 10th October 2001, and the agreed monthly rent of Rs. 50,000/-. The High Court, however, questioned the clarity of this admission. The Supreme Court observed that the written statement by the defendant did not deny the execution of the lease deed or the agreed rent, thus affirming the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship. The Court emphasized that whether the lease was for residential or commercial purposes was immaterial for the decree of possession.

2. Termination of Tenancy by Notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act:
The plaintiff claimed that a notice under Section 106 was served due to substantial structural changes made by the defendant. The defendant did not deny the receipt of this notice but questioned its validity under Section 106. The Supreme Court found that the notice was valid and its service was not denied, thus affirming the termination of the tenancy.

3. Validity of Lease Deed and Its Implications:
The defendant argued that the lease deed was invalid due to lack of stamp duty and registration. The Supreme Court held that the validity of the lease deed did not affect the existence of the tenancy, as the defendant was in possession of the property pursuant to the lease agreement. The Court noted that this issue was irrelevant for the decree of possession.

4. Estoppel under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act:
The defendant challenged the plaintiff's title based on an order by the Revenue Authority. The Supreme Court reiterated that under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, a tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy. The Court cited precedents to support this principle, affirming that the defendant could not challenge the plaintiff's title.

5. Structural Changes Made by the Tenant and Their Relevance:
The defendant claimed to have made structural changes to the property. The Supreme Court found that these changes were irrelevant to the determination of possession, as the tenancy was not protected under the Rent Control Act due to the high rent. The Court stated that the nature and extent of structural changes did not affect the landlord-tenant relationship.

6. Challenge to the Landlord's Title Based on Prior Orders by Revenue Authority:
The defendant's challenge to the plaintiff's title was based on an order dated 17th February 1999, which predated the lease agreement. The Supreme Court held that the challenge was not permissible under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, as it was based on a document anterior to the tenancy.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and affirmed the trial court's decree for possession. The Court granted the defendant time till 31st December 2012 to vacate the premises, subject to an undertaking and payment of mesne profits as determined by the trial court. The appeal was allowed with each party bearing its own costs.

← Previous Next →