Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. U. Khan, J.
HAROLD WILLIAM - Appellant
Versus
XTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 25346 Of 1994
Decided On : 09/16/2003
Denial of Title - Tenancy - U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, Section 20(2)(f), Section 111(g) of Transfer of Property Act, Section 116 of Evidence Act - The court discussed the applicability of Section 20(2)(f) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the related sections of the Transfer of Property Act and Evidence Act. It highlighted the principle of estoppel and the tenant's liability to ejectment if denying the title of the landlord who inducted him as a tenant. The court also referenced several authorities to support its interpretation of the law.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant was sued for ejectment based on denial of title as provided under Section 20(2)(f) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The courts below found the tenant liable for denial of title, but the higher court set aside this finding and remanded the matter to consider the applicability of Section 20(4) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed that the respondent was the landlord but set aside the finding that the tenant denied the landlord's title, remanding the matter to consider the applicability of Section 20(4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of title by the tenant and the applicability of Section 20(4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tenant's assertion did not amount to denial of title as mentioned under Section 20(2)(f) of the Act, and highlighted the principle of estoppel under Section 116 of the Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the trial court to consider the applicability of Section 20(4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
( 1 ) THIS is tenants writ petition against whom suit for ejectment has been decreed by both the courts below mainly on the ground of denial of title as provided under Section 20 (2) (f) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The suit was registered as S. C. C. Suit No. 147 of 1986 and was decreed by additional J. S. C. C. , Bareilly on 27. 2. 1991. Revision filed by the tenant petitioner numbered as s. C. C. Revision No. 10 of 1991 was dismissed by Xth Additional District Judge, Bareilly, through judgment and order dated 8. 7. 1994. This writ petition is directed -against the aforesaid judgment and decree.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the plaint, which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition the defendant was allottee of the house in dispute through an allotment order dated 28. 3. 1980 obtained in collusion with the previous tenant Ram Chandra who is close relative of the defendant. It has further been stated in the plaint that father of the plaintiff Albert Singh filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale executed by previous owner of the house in dispute in his favour being original Suit No. 20 of 1981 which was decreed through compromise dated 12. 1. 1984 on 1. 2. 1984 and the Court executed the sale deed in pursuance of the said decree on 17. 5. 1984. In para 10 of the plaint it was asserted that defendant in various proceedings denied the title of the plaintiff however, no detail of the proceedings was given in said para. In para 11 of the plaint it was stated that on 18. 9. 1986 plaintiff sent notice to the defendant determining the tenancy. In reply which was dated 18. 10. 1986 defendant denied the title of the plaintiff. It has not been stated in the plaint whether any notice intimating about the sale deed dated 17. 5. 1984 was given to the defendant before 18. 10. 1986 or not. In para 6 of the reply to the notice it was stated by the defendant that he had deposited the rent under Section 30 as he had no knowledge of the forged agreement or collusive suit for specific performance. It was further stated in the plaint that rate of rent was Rs. 20 per month and the rent had not been paid to the plaintiff. The notice is annexure-1 to the writ petition and its reply is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In para 6 of the reply noticed it was stated :
"the theme of your notice suggests that some sale deed had been obtained by you hence my client is not concerned with the past history of collusion or otherwise and is prepared to pay the amount of rent accrued due to the rightful persons and so in order to create attorment, i. e. , relationship of landlord and tenant in between you and my client, you should please arrange to send copy of the sale deed if at all is in your possession so that my client may study the same and remit the rent of the premises. In the notice under reply full particulars of the sale deed are not available hence you are required to send the copy of my client, if you require the amount of rent which is lying unpaid. Neither my client had ever asserted title in anybody else nor he was in a position to deny your title if at all you had got any sale deed of the house in possession and tenancy of my client so please arrange to send copy of the sale deed. "
( 3 ) AS stated earlier in para 11 of the plaint the case of denial of title was based on para 6 of reply notice itself and the earlier part of para 6 of the said reply notice was noted in inverted commas in the said para 11 of the plaint.
( 4 ) BOTH the courts below have found that the assertion of the tenant amounted to denial of title.
( 5 ) IN a recent authority in AIR 2002 SC 1264, it has been held that :
"questioning the derivative title of the transferee landlord does not amount to denial of title. "
( 6 ) IN fact, Section 20 (2) (f) of the Act and Section 111 (g) of Transfer of Property Act are to be read along with Section 116 of Evidence Act according to which tenant is estopped from denying the title of the person who inducts him as tenant.
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
