Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3916
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Samsudeen - Appellant
Versus
Ajma Bee - Respondent
C.R.P. Nos. 2020, 2026, 3003 of 2024, C.M.P. Nos. 10851, 16138, 10800 of 2024
Decided On : 09-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : K. Muruganatham, M. Kanagaraj
For the Respondents: Hema Sampath, R. Meenal
A tenant cannot deny a landlord's title during the tenancy as per Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act - Section 116 - Tenant’s right to deny landlord's title - Court reiterated the principle that a tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord during the tenancy period. (Para 10)
(B) Landlord-Tenant Relationship - Essential for establishing obligation under rental agreements and eviction proceedings - Evidence demonstrated that the petitioner defaulted on rent and admitted to the landlord's title. (Paras 9, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner argued lack of landlord-tenant relationship, claiming the property originally belonged to the Government. Respondents asserted ownership through a rental agreement and history of property claims.
Findings of Court:
The court found the petitioner made willful default in rent payment and denied the landlord's title without basis.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could deny the landlord's title and the grounds for eviction based on rent default.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a tenant is estopped from denying his landlord's title during the tenancy, reinforcing the importance of lease agreements in determining rights.
Result: Civil Revision Petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of civil revision petitions (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. ownership and tenancy disputes (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's examination of the tenancy and defaults (Para 8) |
| 4. denial of landlord-tenant relationship (Para 9) |
| 5. estoppel under indian evidence act (Para 10) |
| 6. findings of lower courts upheld (Para 11) |
| 7. civil revision petitions dismissed (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER :
1. Since the issue involved in all the Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.2020/2024 is filed challenging the Docket Order in E.P.No.48 of 2022 in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2010, dated 10.04.2024, passed by the learned District Munsif, Panruti, wherein and whereby, the Execution Court ordered delivery of E.P. schedule property, by 21.09.2023, in favour of the decree holder.
3. The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.2026/2024 is filed challenging the Docket Order in E.A.No.215 of 2022 in E.P.No.48 of 2022 in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2010, dated 10.04.2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti, wherein and whereby, the Execution Court ordered delivery by 13.06.2024, in favour of the decree holders.
4. The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.3003 of 2024 is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree, dated 20.04.2022 in R.C.A.No.2 of 2017, on the file of Subordinate Court (Rent Control Appellate Authority) Panruti, confirming the Fair and Decreetal Order, dated 09.09.2016, passed in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2010, on the file of District Munsif / Rent Controller at Panruti.
5. Mr.K.Muruganatham, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petition schedule property originally belongs to the Government, and poromboke land, in which, in the year of 1960, one Syed Ibrahimkhan constructed a thatched house and the Government recognized such possession and granted patta infavour of the said Syed Ibrahimkhan. The said Syed Ibrahimkhan died on 08.10.1987 leaving his son, daughter, mother and wife. After the demise of Syed Ibrahimkhan, his wife, son and daughter went to B.Mutlur Village. Thereafter Syed Ibrahimkhan's wife and daughter died. His son Khaksha Hussian informed to the 1st respondent to maintain the petition Schedule property and execute sale agreement in favour of the petitioner on 22.01.2008. After the return from abroad, the said Kaksha Hussian informed to the petitioner for sale of the property and unregistered sale agreement as executed on 27.07.2009. An endorsement to that effect made on the back side for receiving the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 27.07.2009. There is no right for the respondents to evict the petitioner. There is no landlord and Tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondents. There is no necessity to pay rent by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent. There is no need to the 2nd respondent for his own occupation. The petitioner has filed the suit against the respondent in O.S.No.202/2010, for permanent injunction.
6. Ms.Hema Sampath, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petition schedule property belongs to the 1st respondent's mother Jogarabe. After the demise of Jogarabe's husband and her only son Syed Ibrahimkhan. The said Jogarabe acquired patta in her name and possessed the same by paying kist. On 10.07.1990, the said Jogarabe and the petitioner entered into Rental Agreement and the rent period is 3 years. The monthly Rent fixed as Rs.200/-. The Jogarabe died in the year of 1990. The predeceased son of Jogarabe, by name, Syed Ibrahimkhan divorced his wife Naimonmisha on 21.09.1981. Their child Syed Wajit died in the year of 1987. After the demise of Jogarabe, the petitioner entered rental agreement with the 1st respondent on 01.02.2006 for the period of 11 months and the monthly rent fixed as Rs.600/-. Thereafter, on 22.01.2008, again rental agreement entered into between the 1st respondent and the petitioner. Thereafter, the 1st respondent settled the petition mentioned property in f
