Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Raghubar Dayal and A. P. Srivastava, JJ.
HASHMAT HUSAIN - Appellant
Versus
SAGHIR AHMAD - Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal 27 Of 1951
Decided On : 09/27/1957
LANDLORD AND TENANT - LEASE - DETERMINATION - FORFEITURE - RENUNCIATION OF CHARACTER AS LESSEE - SETTING UP TITLE IN THIRD PERSON - U. P. CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION ACT (III OF 1947), SECTION 3(F) - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, Hashmat Husain, purchased shops and a hall from the heirs of Abdul Hameed. The tenants, Fazal Ahmad and Saghir Ahmad, executed a Qabuliyat in favor of the heirs. During a rent recovery suit, the tenants alleged that Fayyaz Alam was a co-owner of the property and that the plaintiff had only purchased the rights of the heirs of Abdul Hameed. The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent, claiming that the shops had fallen down and he had built a room in their place.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the tenants' allegation in the written statement of the rent suit, setting up a title in Fayyaz Alam, amounted to a denial of the plaintiff's title and a renunciation of their character as lessees. This constituted a forfeiture of the lease under Section 111(g)(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The court also held that the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act (III of 1947), Section 3(f), allowed for the ejectment of a tenant who had renounced their character as such or denied the title of the landlord.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenants' allegation in the written statement of the rent suit, setting up a title in Fayyaz Alam, amounted to a denial of the plaintiff's title and a renunciation of their character as lessees. 2. Whether the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act (III of 1947), Section 3(f), allowed for the ejectment of a tenant who had renounced their character as such or denied the title of the landlord.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 111(g)(2) of the Transfer of Property Act to mean that a lease is determined by forfeiture when a tenant sets up a title in a third person, whether to the extent of the whole or to the extent of a part. The court found that the tenants' allegation in the written statement of the rent suit, setting up a title in Fayyaz Alam, was a distinct claim to hold possession of the shops and hall on a ground inconsistent with the relationship of a lessor and lessee, and therefore amounted to a renunciation of that relationship. 2. The court interpreted Section 3(f) of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act (III of 1947) to mean that a tenant can be evicted if they have renounced their character as such or denied the title of the landlord. The court found that the tenants had renounced their character as lessees by setting up a title in Fayyaz Alam and had denied the title of the plaintiff by not admitting him to be the sole proprietor of the accommodation they were occupying.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, and confirmed the decree passed by the first appellate Court ordering the ejectment of the defendants from the premises detailed in the plaint.
( 1 ) THIS is a special appeal by a plaintiff against an order of a learned Single Judge allowing the second appeal of the defendants and dismissing his suit for ejectment.
( 2 ) ONE Abdul Hameed owned the three shops and hall in suit. On his death Saghir Ahmad and fazal Ahmad took them on rent from his heirs. They executed a Qabuliyat in their favour. Hashmat Husain, the plaintiff, purchased these shops and hall along with another house from the heirs of Abdul Hameed on 7-8-1941, informed the two tenants about it and subsequently included a portion of the hall with their consent in his house and reduced the monthly rent. He filed a suit for recovery of rent against Fazal Ahmad and Saghir Ahmad--Suit No. 591 of 1943. They contested the suit and alleged in the written statement that one Fayyaz Alam was also a co-sharer in the proprietary right as his father Shaukat Husain was the co-owner of Abdul hameed in respect of the shops and hall in dispute and that the plaintiff had purchased only the rights of the heirs of Abdul Hameed. During the pendency of the suit Fazal Ahmad died and his heirs were brought on the record.
( 3 ) FAYYAZ Alam then filed a suit (No. 33 of 1944) claiming a declaration of his title to a half share of the property. This suit was filed against Hashmat Husain, the heir of Abdul Hameed, and the tenant Saghir Ahmad and others. The tenants tried to support Fayyaz Alam in that suit but it was dismissed and Fayyaz Alams claim as a co-owner of the property was found to be untenable.
( 4 ) BASING his cause of action on the denial of the plaintiffs full ownership of the shops and hall under the tenancy of the defendants, Hashmat Husain instituted the present suit in 1945 for ejectment and arrears of rent. It was alleged in the plaint that the shops had fallen down due to rains and the plaintiff had taken over possession and built a room in their place and that the defendants were thereafter in possession of the hall only.
( 5 ) THE defendants contested the suit on the grounds that the plaintiff was not the sole owner of the hall in dispute, that the notice of ejectment was bad and that the defendants were not liable to be ejected. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to evict the defendants owing to the Rent Control Order.
( 6 ) THE trial Court dismissed the suit for ejectment holding that the notice to quit was not a valid notice and that the tenancy had not been determined by any forfeiture as the alleged defendants contention in suit No. 591 of 1943 did not amount to a denial of the plaintiffs title. The plaintiff appealed and the appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for ejectment. Some of the defendants then filed a second appeal in this Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit holding that the alleged statement of the defendants in their written statement in the previous suit for the recovery of arrears of rent was not a disclaimer as contemplated by Clause (g) of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act and that there had been no forfeiture of tenancy. The plaintiff has therefore filed this special appeal.
( 7 ) IT is now no more in dispute that the plaintiff is the sole owner. The only question raised by the appellant in this special appeal is that the allegation in the written statement of the rent suit to the effect that the plaintiff was not the sole owner of the property in suit but had only a share in it, the other share being owned by Fayyaz Alam, did amount to a denial of the plaintiffs title by setting up a title in another as well and entitled the plaintiff to eject the defendants from the hall. It is contended that the view of the learned Single Judge that such an allegation of the defendants did not amount to a denial of the plaintiffs title is wrong. For the respondents the decree of the learned Single Judge is tried to be supported on another ground too and it is that no decree for ejectment could be passed
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
