9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntatives. The premises in question are in Eluru Town in Andhra Pradesh. The appellant is carrying on business in the name and style of Sri Panduranga Engineering Company. According to the original respondent (who will hereinafter be referred to as the respondent ) he was the owner of the building in which the said premises situated and hence, the owner of the said premises. The respondent filed an eviction petition against the appellant on the ground of bona fide requirement as he wanted to set up his eldest son in business by start- ing a photo studio in the said premises. The appellant disputed the correctness of the said claim. The appellant in his counter to the eviction petition, inter alia, alleged that the said property in which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he grounds of eviction found by the Rent Controller. Against this decision, the appellant preferred a revision petition to the High Court. The High Court in its impugned judgment upheld the order of eviction only on the ground of denial of title which was not a bona fide denial. It is this decision of the High Court which is challenged before us. The finding that the denial of title was not bona fide, is essentially a finding of fact and, fairly enough, no dispute has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant in respect of that finding. It is, however, submitted by him that in order to constitute a ground for eviction the denial of title .must be anterior to the filing of the eviction petition and a denial of title in the course of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for eviction must come into existence before the application to the Rent Controller for eviction is made and hence, a denial of title which can be relied upon by the landlord-respondent for eviction must be. anterior to the eviction petition. In support of his contention, Mr. Rangam, learned coun- sel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of a Bench of this Court in Kundan Mal v. Gurudutta, Judgments Today (1989) 1 S.C. 147. In that case it has been observed that in providing disclaimer as a ground for eviction of a tenant in clause (f) of section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 the Legis- lature decided to give effect to the provisions of clause (g) of section 111 of the Transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tle was not the only ground pleaded in support of the claim for eviction but it was also contended by the respond- ent that the appellant was liable to be evicted as the respondent wanted the said premises for his personal bona fide use and occupation. It was argued by learned counsel for the appellant that even accepting that there was a denial of title by the appellant and the result would be only that the respondent- landlord became entitled to forfeit the lease and in order to be a ground for eviction in a suit that forfeiture would have to precede the suit or petition for eviction. It was submitted by him that it was not open to a landlord to take advantage of a denial of title by the tenant in the very proceedings for eviction in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obtaining under the Transfer of Property Act and the Rent Acts in the matter of determination of a lease is that under the former Act in order to recover possession of the leased premises determi- nation of the lease is necessary because during the continu- ance of the lease the landlord cannot recover possession of the premises while under the Rent Acts the landlord becomes entitled to recover possession only on the fulfilment of the conditions laid down in the relevant sections. He cannot recover possession merely by determining the tenancy. Nor can he be stopped from doing so on the ground that he has not terminated the contractual tenancy. In the case before us, we find that the denial of landlord's title by the tenant has been exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d counsel for the appellant that, in any event, the respondent failed to apply for amendment of his plaint and incorporate the ground of denial of title therein as he was bound to do so in order to get relief on that ground which had arisen after the eviction petition was filed. We agree that normally this would have been so but, in the present case, we find that the Trial Court, namely, the Rent Controller, framed an issue as to whether the tenant's denial of the landlord's title to the schedule property including the said premises was bona fide. The parties went to trial on this clear issue and the appel- lant had full knowledge of the ground alleged against him. It was open to him to have objected to the framing of this issue on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
