Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1670

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. Maheshwari, K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
Jyoti Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Vishnu Goyal & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11768 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29500 of 2024)
Decided On : 11-09-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Puneet Jain, Sr. Adv. Ms. Christi Jain, AOR Mr. Kartik Karara, Adv. Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Harsh Jain, Adv. Mr. Mann Arora, Adv. Mr. Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Adv. Mr. Aditya Jain, Adv. Mr. Yogit Kamat, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv. Mr. Manit Moorjani, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. N.K. Mody, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ishita M Puranik, Adv. Ms. Jigisha Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Aniya, Adv. Mr. Suresh Kumar Bhan, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Rent and Eviction – In a suit for eviction, proof of ownership of tenanted premises is not to be strictly looked at as in a suit for declaration of title – Tenant having come into possession of tenanted premises by a rent deed executed by earlier landlord, cannot turn around and challenge his ownership.

Headnote:
Rent and Eviction – In a suit for eviction, proof of ownership of tenanted premises is not to be strictly looked at as in a suit for declaration of title – When an order of probate was produced, which is not mandatory, claim of plaintiff through a Will attains a legal sanctity which could not have been brushed aside by High Court – Tenant having come into possession of tenanted premises by a rent deed executed by earlier landlord, cannot turn around and challenge his ownership – From 1953, predecessor of defendants and defendants, after their father’s death had been paying rent to father-in-law of plaintiff – Dispute regarding title of father-in-law of plaintiff could not have been raised by tenant who had come into the premises by virtue of a deed executed by father-in-law of plaintiff to whom, for more than half a century, tenants were also paying rent – Bona fide need stands established – Impugned orders set aside and eviction suit decreed. (Paras 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Successors of the landlord and tenant, which relationship commenced in the year 1953, are parties to this litigation, former claiming eviction and possession on bona fide need and latter, seeking retention on the ground of the alleged successor to the landlord having no title over the shop. Suit was dismissed but in first appeal, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the suit was remanded for fresh consideration with specific findings on certain issues. In the second appeal before High Court, first appellate court order was set aside, on consent for fresh disposal on all issues. First appellate court then dismissed appeal which dismissal was affirmed by the High Court in second appeal.
Findings of Court:
As for bona fide need, there is no dispute as to the business carried on; of sweets and savouries, in adjacent shop room. There is also no dispute on the sons of the plaintiff also having joined the business and the plaintiff’s intention to participate in the business, thus expanding it to the tenanted premises. The bona fide need hence stands established.
Result : Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Ratio Decidendi:

In a suit for eviction under rent laws, proof of ownership of the tenanted premises is not required to the same strict standard as in a suit for declaration of title. (!) (!)
A tenant who has attained possession through a rent deed executed by an earlier landlord, and has paid rent to that landlord or their representatives for an extended period (such as over half a century), cannot subsequently challenge the landlord's title or ownership. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Production of a probate order (though not mandatory) in respect of a Will bequeathing the tenanted premises imparts legal sanctity to the plaintiff's claim of title through the Will, which cannot be disregarded. (!) (!)
Where a plaintiff establishes a bona fide need for the tenanted premises—such as expanding an existing family business in an adjacent shop, with family members already involved—the need is proved, warranting eviction. (!) (!) (!)
Concurrent findings of courts below may be interfered with by a higher court if they perversely disregard material evidence, such as a probate order, relinquishment deed, rent payment history, and notice of attornment, leading to decree of eviction and arrears of rent. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The successors of the landlord and tenant, which relationship commenced in the year 1953, are the parties to this litigation, the former claiming eviction and possession on bona fide need and the latter, seeking retention on the ground of the alleged successor to the landlord having no title over the shop. The suit was dismissed but in first appeal, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the suit was remanded for fresh consideration with specific findings on certain issues. In the second appeal before the High Court, the first appellate court order was set aside, on consent for fresh disposal on all issues. The first appellate court then dismissed the appeal which dismissal was affirmed by the High Court in second appeal.

3. We have heard Mr. Puneet Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff/landlord and Mr.N.K. Mody, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/tenants.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants.

5. Admittedly, the shop room, which is the bone of contention was rented out to the father of the defendants by one Ramji Das, the father-in-law of the plaintiff. The father of the defendants Kishan Lal was carrying on a grocery business, which after his death, the defendants, his sons, continued. The husband of the plaintiff carries on a sweets and savouries shop in a part of the building adjacent to the shop room and their family resides on the first floor of the building. The father-in- law of the plaintiff died on 07.08.1999 before which he executed a Will dated 12.05.1999, bequeathing the shop room to his daughter-in-law, the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of rent defaulted, from January 2000, and eviction on the ground of bona fide need. The bona fide need projected was of joining her husband’s business, to expand it to the room rented out. The plaintiff also asserted that the adjacent shop room in which her husband was carrying on business was bequeathed by her father-in-law to her children, who have also joined the business.

6. The defendants disputed the very title of Ramji Das and assailed the Will as a fraudulent one. It was asserted that Ramji Das never had title since the premises belonged to one Sua Lal, the paternal uncle of Ramji Das who died in 1984. The defendants, however admitted that the rent deed was executed by Ramji Das and he was receiving rent from the tenants through his son, the plaintiff’s husband, which, the plaintiff asserted was continued for a few months after his death too.

7. The trial court found that after the death of the father-in- law, there was no attornment of tenancy, and the defendants were never informed of the bequest. The trial court expressed suspicion over the Will, based on the comparison of the signatures of the Will with the rent receipt, allegedly issued by Ramji Das. It was also found that the husband of the plaintiff received the rent after the death of Ramji Das. On these grounds, it was held that the plaintiff failed to prove the ownership of the disputed shop and the landlord-tenant relationship, disentitling the plaintiff from recovery of rent, and eviction on grounds of bona fide need. The first appellate court first remanded certain issues but on remand by the High Court, affirmed the findings of the trial court which was affirmed by the High Court in a further second appeal.

8. Before the High Court, the plaintiff produced an order dated 09.02.2018 of the Additional District Judge, probating the Will in Probate Case No.8 of 2013. Though, the said document was sought to be produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908¹[for short, ‘the CPC’], the application was rejected. The High Court found that there was no cause to entertain an application for production of an order, which the applicant did not obtain at any time when the proceedings were pending before the trial court and the appellate court.

9. True, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document