Back
High Court Of Orissa
K. B. Panda And P. K. Mohanti, JJ.
SURAJBALI RAM - Appellant
Versus
DHANI RAM - Respondent
Original Jur. Case 1200 Of 1978
Decided On : 01/12/1979
HOUSE RENT CONTROL ACT - EVICTION - LANDLORD AND TENANT - RELATIONSHIP - ESTOPPEL - TITLE - JURISDICTION - SUMMARY ENQUIRY - FRAUD - SECTION 116 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are brothers and tenants under opposite party No. 1, in this application seek annulment of the eviction order passed against them under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 by the appellate authority.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioners were estopped from denying the landlord's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act and that the appellate authority had jurisdiction to decide the question of fraud in the previous eviction proceeding.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were estopped from denying the landlord's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act? 2. Whether the appellate authority had jurisdiction to decide the question of fraud in the previous eviction proceeding?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 116 of the Evidence Act postulates that a tenant who has been admitted into possession would not be entitled to deny the landlord's title, however defective it may have been, so long as he has not surrendered possession of the premises to the landlord. 2. Where a tenant raises the contention that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the authorities constituted by the Act would necessarily be called upon to record a finding on the jurisdictional issue and the Controller would certainly have jurisdiction to decide as to who the landlord of the premises is.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
PANDA, J.
( 1 ) THE two petitioners, who are brothers and tenants under opposite party No. 1, in this application seek annulment of the eviction order passed against them under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 by the appellate authority on 48-1978 (Annexure 8 ).
( 2 ) THIS is a typical case exemplifying the desperate efforts made by the tenants to perpetuate their possession by all conceivable methods -- doubtful and dubious.
( 3 ) FACTS necessary for the disposal of this writ petition may be stated as follows :---Dhani Ram, opposite party No. 1, is alleged to be the owner of a pucca house appertaining to Holding No, 38 in Ward No. 24 of Cuttack municipality. The ground floor of that building has got two units. A pucca wall separates these two units and divides the well lying at the centre into two halves. These halves, therefore, can conveniently be described as 'eastern part' and 'western part'. The western part is cross marked in red ink and that is the property from which eviction was sought for by Dhani Ram (opp. party No. 1) of the two tenant-petitioners. The case was numbered as House Rent Control Case No. 37 of 1976. Admittedly, the petitioners had been inducted by Dhani ram as tenants as early as in 1958. Dhani Ram (opposite party No. 1) sought eviction mainly on the ground that the house he was staying in and carrying on business had become insufficient for the accommodation of his increased family of four married sons and fourteen grandchildren. Besides, his sons who have now become adults, were in bona fide need of this tenanted house for having independent business of their own. It is conceded that the two tenant-petitioners were running a sweetmeat stall all through in the disputed house.
( 4 ) THE case of the petitioners in essence was that the house in question did not belong to Dhani Ram but to his brother Ram Chandra Ram. Dhani Ram, therefore, was not entitled to initiate the eviction proceeding for his personal use. They admitted to be paying rent to Dhani Ram, but added that it was under a "mistaken impression about his title. " According to them, in a partition deed between Dhani Ram and his brothers effected on 4-11-1953, the tenanted house standing on C. S. Plot No. 1367/1566 and 1367/1567 had fallen to the share of Ram Chandra Ram-After mutation of his name in the Tahsil Office, ramchandra Ram instituted House Rent Control Case No. 58 of 1975 against them for eviction. In that case, Ram Chandra Ram succeeded and evicted the present two petitioners through Civil Court and took delivery of possession on 31-10-1975. After such eviction, Ram Chandra Ram entered into a fresh contract with the petitioners for lease and allowed them to continue their business on sweetmeats on the front portion while he remained in occupation of the back portion. The case of Dhani Ram that he needed the house for his personal use i, e. to provide business for his sons was generally denied.
( 5 ) A large number of documents were exhibited. Out of them the partition deed dated 4-11-1953 is Ext. 1 (Annexure 3) and the municipal rent receipts (Exts. 7 to 79) are important. Mare important are Exts. 2 to 2/2, the counterfoils of the three rent receipts granted to the tenants by Dhani Ram for the months of january, February and March, 1976. Their significance lies in the fact that according to the tenant-petitioners they had been evicted by the real owner ram Chandra Ram in pursuance of the decree passed in H. R. C. Case No. 58 of 1975 on 31-10-1975. If this H. R. C. Case, consequent eviction and creation of a new tenancy by Ram Chandra Ram with the tenant-petitioners, whereby he (Ram Chandra Ram) occupied the back portion if true and genuine, there was no conceivable reason why the tenants of Dhani Ram would continue paying the usual rent to him till March end, 1876. i. e. for five months even after their eviction by the so-called real owner and a fresh tenancy replacing the old one. Certainly the petitioner-tenants who a
AI
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
