Back
1996 Supreme(Cal) 98
High Court Of Calcutta
Basudeva Panigrahi
BABULAL SATANALIKA - Appellant
Versus
SATYA NARAIN AGARWALLA - Respondent
S. A. 1682 Of 1968
Decided On : 03/07/1996
SIBADAS GHOSAL
A tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872, if the tenant has paid rent to the landlord.
Headnote:
LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - SECTIONS 11, 21, 116 - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 116 - SUIT FOR EVICTION - REASONABLE REQUIREMENT - ESTOPPEL - TITLE OF LANDLORD - JOINT OWNERSHIP - RENT RECEIPTS - SUMMARY: The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment of the defendants from the suit premises, alleging that they were monthly tenants who had defaulted in paying rent. The defendants claimed that they had deposited the rent with the Rent Controller under Section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and that the plaintiff was not the exclusive owner of the suit property, but a joint owner along with the defendant No. 5. The trial court found that the plaintiff was the exclusive owner of the suit property and that the defendants had failed to prove their claim of joint ownership. The appellate court reversed the trial court's findings and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, claiming to be the exclusive owner of the suit property, filed a suit for ejectment of the defendants, alleging that they were monthly tenants who had defaulted in paying rent. The defendants claimed that they had deposited the rent with the Rent Controller under Section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and that the plaintiff was not the exclusive owner of the suit property, but a joint owner along with the defendant No. 5.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the plaintiff was the exclusive owner of the suit property and that the defendants had failed to prove their claim of joint ownership. The court also held that the defendants were estopped from denying the plaintiff's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872, since they had paid rent to the plaintiff's vendor.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was the exclusive owner of the suit property? 2. Whether the defendants had proved their claim of joint ownership? 3. Whether the defendants were estopped from denying the plaintiff's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff was the exclusive owner of the suit property based on the deed of conveyance (Ext. 5) through which the property was conveyed to him by Mohiuddin Ansari and his two brothers. The court noted that the defendants had failed to adduce any credible evidence to support their claim that the property was purchased in the name of Mohiuddin Ansari benami. 2. The court held that the defendants had failed to prove their claim of joint ownership. The court noted that the defendants had taken a categorical stand in their written statement that Hazi Bhaktar got the property purchased in the name of Mohiuddin, but they failed to adduce any credible evidence to substantiate this claim. 3. The court held that the defendants were estopped from denying the plaintiff's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872, since they had paid rent to the plaintiff's vendor. The court noted that the rent receipts (Ext. A series) filed by the defendants showed that they had paid rent to the plaintiff's vendor, and that it was only after the plaintiff purchased the property that the defendants began to claim joint ownership.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, vacated the judgment and decree of the appellate court, and decreed the suit for ejectment of the defendants from the suit premises.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the reversing judgment and decree passed by the Sub-ordinate Judge, Asansol in Title Appeal No. 109 of 1966 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) filed the suit for ejectment of the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) from the suit premises alleging inter alia that the defendants 1 to 4 were the monthly tenants under Md. Mohiuddin Ansari and his brothers at a monthly rental of Rs. 28/- payable according to English Calendar Month. While Mohiuddin and his brothers were in possession of the properties sold the same to the plaintiff for valuable consideration under a strength of a registered deed of conveyance dated 23rd March, 1957. The erstwhile landlords informed the defendants 1 to 4 about such sale transaction and asked to treat the plaintiff as their landlord by a notice dated 6th April, 1957. The defendants had allegedly received the notice on 8th April, 1957. The plaintiff also informed the defendants regarding such sale transaction and claiming to be the landlord of the suit premises by the letter dated 29th March, 1957 which had been acknowledged by the latter on 1st April, 1957. The defendants 1 to 4 with a mischievous intention just to avoid the payment of rent began to deposit rents jointly in the names of the plaintiff as well as the defendant No. 5 under section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for which it appears that there was a Misc. Case registered before the Rent Controller, Asansol in Misc. Case 34/57. Since the defendants 1 to 4 began to disclaim the right of the plaintiff their relationship as landlord and tenant from that date onwards was terminated. The plaintiff further claimed that the defendant No. 5 has had no right title, interest and possession over the suit premises and therefore if any rent deposited/paid by the defendants 1 to 4 could not constitute valid payment of rent. Since they defaulted in paying rent from March, 1957, they have forfeited all rights to protection against ejectment from the suit premises who are liable to be evicted from the same. The plaintiff has served valid notice determining the tenancy against defendants 1 to 4 stating that they would vacate the premises within one month from February, 1963 which had been properly acknowledged by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on 22nd January, 1963 but the defendants 1 to 4 refused to receive the notice which the plaintiff has subsequently received with such endorsement. Even after expiry of the period and on receipt of the registered notice sent by the plaintiff when the defendants 1 to 4 did not vacate the suit premises the plaintiff was obliged to bring the suit for eviction of the defendants on the ground of reasonable requirement, building and re-building and also for default in payment of rent. The defendants 2 to 4 filed a joint written statement while the proforma defendant No. 5 by a separate written statement denied the plaint allegation. The defence set up by the defendants 2 to 4, in short, shows that the plaintiff's vendor Md. Mohiudin Ansari was not the exclusive owner of the suit property which belonged also to his brothers. The defendant No. 5 being the grand daughter of Mohiuddin' s brother is also a co-sharer of the suit house who is entitled to rent as that of the plaintiff. Therefore the defendants 1 to 4 legitimately deposited the rent before the Rent Controller and for that reason on no count they could be treated as defaulter. Another stand was taken by them that the proforma defendant No. 5 served a notice upon defendants Nos. 2 to 4 demanding the rent in respect of the suit premises and on that account the contesting defendants 2 to 4 had to take steps for depositing the rent before the Rent Controller.
( 2 ) THE learned Munsif on a careful consideration of the evidence on record, came to hold that the plaintiff had properly served ejectment notice on the defendan
