A tenant is estopped from questioning landlord's title so long as tenant does not surrender possession to landlord.

1. 1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner-Sanwar Lal Rai challenging the judgement of Rent Appellate Tribunal dated 8.3.2011 and seeking restoration of the order of the Rent Tribunal dated 7.10.2010. The Rent Tribunal in the first order allowed the eviction petition filed by the petitioner-landlord under Section 10(1)(c) of the Rent Control Act, 2001 and directed the respondent-tenant to vacate the flat No. 4/476 SF, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur and further directed that the tenant shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,800 as arrears and Rs. 2,800/- as mesne profit. If the tenant fails to vacate the premises within three months, the petitioner would be entitled to charge a sum of Rs. 5,600 per month. The respondent-tenant filed appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, which set aside the judgement of the Rent Tribunal and dismissed the eviction petition filed by the petitioner.

2. The eviction petition was filed by the petitioner on the ground contained in Section 10(1)(c) of the Rent Control Act, 2001 which entitles a senior citizen to recover immediate possession on such ground, provided the petition is filed after expiry of three years from the date of letting out the premises. The explanation to Section 10(1)(c) provides that for the purpose of this Section the expression "landlord" shall mean the owner of the residential premises. Second ground on which the petition for eviction was filed was that of default by the respondent-tenant in not paying the rent for more than four months as per Section 9(a) of the Act. Third ground was of making material alterations in the premises, which is likely to diminish its value with reference to Section 19(c). Fourth and last ground with reference to Section 9(f) was that the respondent-tenant denied the title of the petitioner as landlord.

3. The respondent tenant contested the petition and submitted that he was never put in possession of the disputed flat as a tenant. He acquired possession of the premises of the petitioner in April, 1985, when an oral agreement took place between the petitioner and the respondent on 9.6.1985 according to which the petitioner agreed to sell the aforesaid flat to the respondent for a consideration of Rs. 90,000 and the respondent paid to him a sum of Rs. 21,000 as advance in the presence of one Pd. Ramesh Kumar Sharma. The petitioner joined service of the LIC as Development Officer in April, 2001. The respondent vacated other rented premises and started residing in the aforesaid flat with his family and continues to reside. The petitioner demanded from the respondent a sum of Rs. 50,000. The respondent sent the demand draft bearing No. 556983 dated 27.11.1999 to the petitioner at Jodhpur. The respondent obtained a receipt in lieu thereof on photo copy thereof. Even then the petitioner did not get the sale deed registered. The respondent denied the facts that the house was let out to him on the rental of Rs. 1,300 per month.

4. Shri V.L. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in 1995, the house was let out to the respondents on monthly rent of Rs. 1,100, which rent was increased to Rs. 2,800 in the year 1999. Initially, the respondent paid the rent, but thereafter he stopped making payment of rent despite repeated demands by the petitioner. When the petitioner pressurised for vacating the premises, the respondent sent the earlier outstanding amount of rent by demand draft of Rs. 50,000 in December, 2002, which included the rent upto March, 2003 and did not pay any rent thereafter. Petitioner served upon the respondent notices on 25.4.2006 and 7.4.2006 which were returned with the remarks of non-service on the respondent. The petitioner is a senior citizen of 77 years and therefore is entitled to recover immediate possession in view of Section 10(1)(c) of the Act of 2001.

5. Shri V.L. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the judgement passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal is per