Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.
Legal Heirs of Late Shri Mang Singh S/o Dan Singh Rawal – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Purohit S/o Shri Lanxman Shanker @ Laxmi Narayan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 81 of 2016
Decided On : 07-05-2024
RENT CONTROL - Ejectment under Rajasthan Rent Control Act - Rajasthan Rent Control Act, Transfer of Property Act, Sections 105, 107, 51 - The court discussed the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act and the Transfer of Property Act, particularly Sections 105 and 107. It interpreted that the relationship of landlord and tenant can be established without a registered lease deed when the tenancy is for a period of less than a year. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove their title and the tenant's default in rent payment, which influenced the decision to uphold the eviction order.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment against the original defendant, Mang Singh, under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, claiming personal necessity and default in rent payment. After Mang Singh's death, his legal heirs contested the suit, denying the landlord-tenant relationship. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, leading to a series of appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs had established their title and the tenant's status through documentary evidence, including a sale deed and previous judgments. The appellants failed to provide evidence of their claim of ownership, and the court concluded that the relationship of landlord and tenant was adequately proven.
Issues: The main issues included whether the courts below justified the eviction decree, the applicability of the Transfer of Property Act, and the establishment of the landlord-tenant relationship.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relationship of landlord and tenant can be established without a registered lease deed for tenancies of less than a year. It also clarified that constructive possession suffices for the landlord to bring an eviction suit, and that the plaintiffs had adequately proven their claims.
Final Decision: The civil second appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions and the eviction order against the defendants.
JUDGMENT :
BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.
1. Heard the parties on whether this second appeal contains any substantial question of law.
2. A brief background is that the plaintiffs-respondents had brought a suit for ejectment under Rajasthan Rent Control Act, against original defendant Mang Singh on the ground of personal necessity and default in payment of rent. After death of Mang Singh, his legal heirs were substituted, who are appellants hereat. The learned trial Court decreed the suit by judgment dated 08.02.2013 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 44/2011. The dismissal was challenged by the appellants in Civil First Appeal No. 09/2013 which was also dismissed by judgment and decree dated 10.09.2015. Hence, this second appeal.
3. The case and claim of the plaintiffs-respondents is that Mang Singh was tenant of Kesar Bai in House No. 32 situated in Mohalla Ilaji Ka Neem, Ganesh Ghati, Udaipur. The defendant was tenant in the upper floor and occupied three rooms along with toilet and kitchen. On 24.07.1995, the plaintiffs purchased the suit house from Kesar Bai through registered sale deed vide (Exhibit/1). After purchase, they entered into the shoes of their vendor and became landlords of the defendants. The plaintiffs further asserted that they are in personal need of the suit premise for their occupation and the defendant was/is defaulter in payment of rent since 1992. Prior to that, defendant was paying Rs.60 per month to the vendor of the plaintiffs. The defendants further trespassed on the vacant land by putting their animals thereat.
4. The defendant-appellants appeared and contested the suit denying the averments of the plaintiffs and asserting the fact that they are not tenants in the suit premise nor were tenants of Kesar Bai, rather they are residing therein as owner thereof.
5. Since the defendants had challenged the title of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs produced a copy of the judgment dated 28.02.1962 passed in Civil First Appeal No. 25/1960 titled Mst. Bhanu Bai Vs. Mst. Kesar Bai (Exhibit/31), whereby the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial Court declaring title and possession over the suit land of plaintiff Kesar Bai. The plaintiffs further produced sale deed dated 24.07.1995 executed by Kesar Bai w/o Late Mangi Lal Bhatt, wherein it is specifically mentioned that tenants are residing in the mentioned portion of upper and lower floor. The defendant tenant has defaulted in payment of rent since 1992. The plaintiffs were given physical possession of the remaining portion, which was not under occupation of any tenant and constructive possession over the rest portion with clear stipulation that the toilet etc. would be commonly used by the purchaser and the existing tenants.
6. The plaintiffs were also empowered to recover the due rent from the defaulter tenants. The plaintiffs produced (Exhibit/25), an order of execution of decree passed against another tenant Ramchandra Paliwal on the prayer of Kesar Bai whereunder, the tenant was evicted by process of the Court and possession of the premise was handed over to Kesar Bai on 14.11.1994.
7. The plaintiffs produced (Exhibit/20), judgment and decree dated 01.07.1999 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 184/1998 brought by the plaintiffs for ejectment of tenant Bhanwar Lal who was tenant in another portion of the suit house. (Exhibit/8) is the application of original tenant Mang Singh to the Electricity Division for electric connection in the rented premise of the building wherein Mang Singh specifically mentioned his status that he was tenant in the suit premise. (Exhibit/6) is rent note written by Mang Singh to Kesar Bai wherein he admitted that he is tenant since 09.09.1967 on oral consent and would continue paying rent month to month and get receipt. On this document, another tenant Ramchandra Paliwal is a witness.
8. The defendants-appellants did not produce any documentary evidence of their title. The law is well settled that title to a property cannot be established b
AI
The court established that under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, a landlord can evict a tenant without a registered lease deed if the tenancy is for less than a year, provided sufficient evidence of ....
The case established the importance of evidence in establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant, and the liability for non-payment of rent under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Co....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a tenant's request for clarification about the derivative title of the landlord, without renouncing the status as a tenant, may not be treated....
Concurrent findings of fact regarding landlord-tenant relationship upheld; second appeal dismissed due to lack of substantial question of law.
The tenant cannot deny the landlord's title once the property is transferred under the Transfer of Property Act, as established by the court's findings.
A tenant cannot deny the landlord's title, and eviction can be granted based on established tenancy rights, even if the title is not conclusively proven.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
