IMPORTANT POINT
A tenant by merely denying the relationship of landlord and tenant cannot avoid eviction proceedings; the rent controller can go into title of landlord incidentally while deciding petition for eviction and grant relief of eviction leaving final adjudication of title by Competent Court.

Headnote:Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-Section 20(2)(f)- Eviction on ground of denial of title of landlord-Rent Control Court can go into question of title to property incidentally while deciding petition for eviction-Final determination of title could be left for decision of competent Court-Petitioner cannot be relegated to Civil Court for getting adjudicated title to property first- Tenant cannot avoid eviction proceedings by merely denying relationship of tenant and landlord.
       Held : The Trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case clearly erred in returning the plaint to the plaintiff-appellant under Section 23 of the Small Causes Court Act. Section 23(1) provides that when the right of a plaintiff and the relief claimed by him in a court of small cause depends upon the proof or disproof of a title to immovable property or other title which such a Court cannot finally determine, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings return the plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title. The power vested under sub-section (1) in the Court is discretionary. It is to be exercised only when the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the proceeding before the Small Causes Court depends upon the proof or disproof of a title to the immovable property and the relief sought cannot be granted without determination of the question. In the present case, as noted earlier, the plaintiff filed a petition for eviction under Section 20(2)(f) alleging that she was the landlady of the house and she had inducted respondent No. 1 as tenant of the premises. The question was whether that case was to be accepted or not. Indeed the Trial Court, at the first instance, had accepted the plaintiff s case holding, inter alia, that she had got the property by a registered deed of gift from Smt. Khairunnisa Bibi who in turn had been gifted the property by her mother Fakia Bibi who, indisputedly was the originalowner of the property. The question of title of the plaintiff to the suit house could be considered by the Small Causes Court in the proceedings as an incidental question and final determination of the title could be left for decision of the competent Court. In such circumstances, it could not be said that for the purpose of granting the relief claimed by the plaintiff it was absolutely necessary for the Small Causes Court to determine finally the title to the property. The tenant-respondent by merely denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the plaintiff could not avoid the eviction proceeding under the Rent Control Act. That is neither the language nor the purpose of the provisions in Section 23(1) of the Small Causes Court Act. (Para 12)
       On perusal of the records and on consideration of the admitted facts and the findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court it is our considered view that the learned VIth Additional District Judge, Varanasi rightly passed the judgment/order dated 28.7.1999 decreeing the suit for eviction filed by the appellant and the High Court erred in quashing the said order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The direction of the High Court for remand of the case to the Trial Court for fresh disposal, in our view, is unnecessary in view of the finding recorded by the Trial Court which had not been disturbed on merits by the revisional court, that the appellant was the owner of the suit house and she had inducted the respondent No.1 as a tenant in the house. The respondent-tenant having denied the title of the landlady was liable to be evicted under Section 20(2)(f) of the Act. This Court ordinarily does not interfere with an order of remand passed by High Court but in the facts and circumstances of the present case we feel that a simple proceeding for eviction of the tenant under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, which is to be disposed of expeditiously has dragged on for nearly two decades. (Para 13)

Judgement Key Points

The provided document indicates that the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment on October 18, 2000, in the case of Shamim Akhtar v. Iqbal Ahmad & Anr. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the lower appellate court and confirmed the decree for eviction. The order of the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and affirmed the trial court's order, effectively concluding the matter at that time.

There is no indication within the provided document that this ruling has been subsequently overruled or modified by the Supreme Court. Given the date of the judgment and the absence of any later references or modifications noted in the document, it can be inferred that the ruling remains in force unless there has been a more recent development not captured here.

Therefore, based on the provided information, the ruling appears to still be valid and continues to be the operative legal position regarding this case.

JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-Leave granted.

2. The controversy raised in this case relates to eviction of the tenant from the premises described as House No. CK 48/200, Mohalla Harsha, Varanasi. The appellant claiming to be the landlady of the said house filed a petition under Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), for eviction of respondent No. 1 tenant from the house. The proceeding was registered as suit No. 457/80 in the Court of the Addl. Judge, Small Causes Court at Varanasi. In the petition, eviction of the tenant was sought on the ground that he had denied the title of the landlady and had defaulted in payment of rent. The appellant also sought recovery of arrears of rent from 18.10.1979 to 11.11.1980. Tracing her interest in the house in question the appellant stated that the house was initially owned by Fakia Bibi @ Fatti Bibi who made a gift (hiba) of the property to her sole surviving daughter Khairunnisa Bibi @ Kunno Bibi who was then living with her. Fakia Bibi s son Mohd. Ibrahim was permanently residing at Calcutta and her other children had died by then. After making the said gift in favour of her daughter, Fakia Bibi went to Calcutta and stayed with her son Mohd Ibrahim leaving behind her husband Shaikh Jumman and her daughter Khairunnisa Bibi at Varanasi. Fakia Bibi died in 1949 at Calcutta. Khairunnisa Bibi who was the sole owner of the suit premises allowed her father Shaikh Jumman to run his business on the premises in question. Shaikh Jumman died on 26th August, 1953. Khairunnisa Bibi after her marriage was residing in District Jaunpur. She had inducted the respondent Iqbal Ahmad as a tenant in 1960 in the suit-house on rent at the rate of Rs.15/- which was later enhanced to Rs.25/- per month. During the subsistence of the said tenancy Khairunnisa Bibi gifted the suit property in favour of the appellant Smt. Shamim Akhtar who is the daughter-in-law of her (Khairunnisa) deceased sister, in 1979, by a registered deed of gift and directed the respondent to pay the rent current and arrears to the appellant. However, the respondent-tenant did not pay any rent to the appellant. Thereafter the appellant served the notice dated 10.10.1980 on the respondent terminating his tenancy and asking him to deliver vacant possession of the premises and also to pay the arrear rent.

3. Respondent No.1 reply to the notice admitted that Fakia Bibi was the original owner of the property. According to him in 1947, immediately after partition, Fakia Bibi had made an oral gift to Mohd. Ibrahim son of Mohd. Ishaq of Lahangpura, Aurangabad, Varanasi, and thereafter left for Pakistan in December, 1947. She died there. The respondent stated that he had been paying rent to the said Mohd. Ibrahim. He denied Khairunnisa Bibi s title to the property and clearly refused to accept her as landlady of the suit-house in question. Thereafter the appellant filed the suit No. 457/80 for eviction on the grounds noted earlier.

4. In the meantime the name of the appellant Shamim Akhtar had been mutated in the municipal records in place of the original owner of the property. After receipt of summons in the suit respondent No. 1 approached the District Relief and Rehabilitation Officer-cum-Officer-in-charge of Enemy Property claiming that the suit property was enemy property. A notice was served on the appellants on the complaint lodged by the respondent No.1 and the appellant filed her reply to the said notice. After holding an investigation and hearing the parties, the Custodian, Enemy Property, came to the conclusion that there was no enemy interest involved in the suit house and accordingly discharged the notice by the order dated 26.6.1981. The order having not been challenged attained finality.

5. Respondent No. 1 filed his written statement in the suit denying the appellant s title to the suit-house and also denied the relationship of landlord and t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document