2003 (8) TMI 590 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sale of the property by the Municipal Council to Fatimabi.
2. Relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellants and Fatimabi.
3. Validity of the subsequent sale by Fatimabi to the respondent.
4. Whether the property was evacuee property.
5. Recovery of arrears of rent by the respondent.
6. Whether arrears of rent prior to the transfer are considered as "debt due."

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Sale of the Property by the Municipal Council to Fatimabi:
The appellants contended that the transfer of property by the Municipal Council to Fatimabi was illegal, collusive, and fraudulent. They argued that the Municipal Council did not have the authority to attach or sell the property for arrears of municipal taxes. The court found no evidence to support these claims and held that the appellants failed to prove that the sale was collusive or fraudulent. The court also noted that the appellants had already challenged the auction sale through complaints to the Collector and the Government of Maharashtra, and no action was taken to set aside the sale. Therefore, the court concluded that the sale to Fatimabi was valid.

2. Relationship of Landlord and Tenant Between the Appellants and Fatimabi:
The court held that the appellants were estopped from disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant with Fatimabi as they had attorned to her in 1957 and paid rent to her as per the directions of the original owner. The court emphasized that the burden of proof was on the appellants to show that Fatimabi was not the owner, which they failed to do.

3. Validity of the Subsequent Sale by Fatimabi to the Respondent:
The appellants challenged the sale deed executed by Fatimabi in favor of the respondent, claiming that Fatimabi did not have a valid title to the property. The court held that since the sale to Fatimabi was valid, she had the right to transfer the property to the respondent. The court found no evidence to suggest that the sale from Fatimabi to the respondent was invalid or suffered from any infirmity. Thus, the court upheld the validity of the subsequent sale.

4. Whether the Property was Evacuee Property:
The appellants argued that the property became evacuee property when Mohammad Yahya migrated to Pakistan, and hence it could not be attached or sold by the Municipal Council. The court noted that this plea was raised for the first time in the Supreme Court and that there was no evidence or pleading to support that the property was declared as evacuee property. Therefore, the court rejected this claim.

5. Recovery of Arrears of Rent by the Respondent:
The appellants contended that arrears of rent prior to the sale to the respondent could not be recovered as arrears of rent but as a "debt due." The court examined Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, which allows the transferee to recover arrears of rent if there is an assignment of such arrears. The court found that Fatimabi had assigned the arrears of rent to the respondent, as evidenced by her communication to the appellants and the respondent's notice. Therefore, the court held that the respondent was entitled to recover the arrears as rent.

6. Whether Arrears of Rent Prior to the Transfer are Considered as "Debt Due":
The court addressed the legal question of whether arrears of rent assigned to a transferee lose their character as rent and become a debt. Citing precedents, the court held that arrears of rent do not lose their character upon assignment and can be recovered as rent by the transferee. The court referenced several judgments, including those from the Supreme Court and High Courts, which supported this view. Consequently, the court concluded that the respondent could recover the arrears as rent and maintain eviction proceedings based on those arrears.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the sale of the property to Fatimabi and the subsequent sale to the respondent. The court confirmed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellants and the respondent and held that the respondent was entitled to recover the arrears of rent, including those prior to the transfer. The appellants were found to be in arrears of rent for more than six months, justifying their eviction.