Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH & FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.
Dr. Ranbir Singh
Versus
Asharfi Lal
Civil Appeal No. 7151 of 1993
Decided on 21-09-1995.
Hindu Womens Right to Property Act of 1937 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1956 - Section 100 - Sub-section (1) of Section 100 - Sub-section (4) of Section 100 - Rajasthan Premises Act, 1950 - Section 3 - Property - Monthly Rent - Landlord And Tenant - Property in dispute in present appeal was given on rent to respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 4/- which was inherited by Shri Hemant Singh being adopted son of late Maharaja - Appellant purchased certain property including property in dispute in this appeal from Shri Hemant Singh by a registered sale-deed - On such sale being made rent note executed by respondent in favour of Smt. Malvender Kaur was handed over to appellant by landlord – According to appellant after he purchased suit property he immediately intimated same to respondent who on demand of enhancement of rent, agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 40/-P.M. of suit premises - Respondent had paid rent to him for months of November and December, but did not pay any rent thereafter - Appellant, therefore, served a notice to respondent terminating tenancy and demanded vacant possession of suit premises, specifically mentioning that he was adopted son of late Maharaja Udaibhan Singh - Respondent in his reply did not dispute factum of adoption of Shri Hemant Singh but denied title of appellant as also any privity of contract of tenancy with him – Held, On appreciation of evidence have taken a consistent view that hardship to plaintiff would be greater than hardship to tenant as need of landlord is greater than that of tenant - This also being a finding of fact was not open to challenge in second appeal before High Court and High Court should not have interfered with said finding also on principles - This Court observed that tenant has to prove that he will not be able to get any accommodation anywhere in city or town concerned, before it could be legitimately contended that he had a greater hardship as compared to that of landlord - In present case there is no such evidence or any material produced by defendant to show that he will not be in a position to get alternative accommodation in town of Dholpur for his residence - Two courts below on a careful comparison and assessment of relative advantages and disadvantages of landlord and tenant recorded a clear finding that hardship of plaintiff would be greater and said finding should have been accepted by High Court – Appeal Allowed.
Key Points: - Question of title is not germane for decision in eviction suit; court examines only landlord-tenant relationship and grounds for eviction (!) . - Plaintiff must establish that he is the landlord and defendant is the tenant; privity of contract of tenancy must be proved (!) . - Defendant admitted tenancy and agreed to pay enhanced rent; failure to pay rent after initial months gave grounds for eviction (!) . - Deed of adoption and recognition by Government established succession and inheritance of private properties, supporting plaintiff’s title (!) . - Denial of title by tenant was not bona fide and furnished a ground for eviction (!) . - Hardship to landlord is greater than hardship to tenant when landlord’s need is established; this finding cannot be challenged in second appeal (!) . - Appeal lies to High Court only if substantial question of law is involved; erroneous finding of fact cannot be challenged on second appeal (!) . - Appeal allowed; impugned judgment setting aside trial decree is set aside, and trial decree is restored (!) .
FAIZAN UDDIN, J. :
1. The material facts leading to this appeal are that Maharaja Rana Udaibhan Singhji of the erstwhile State of Dholpur died in the year 1954 leaving behind him his widow Smt. Malvender Kaur and daughter Smt. Urmila Devi. Late Maharaja Udaibhan Singh had no natural male child and according to the appellant the late Maharaja Udaibhan had great attachment with Shri Hemant Singh, the son of his only daughter and during his life time had expressed his wish to adopt Shri Hemant Singh as a son to him and had advised his widow accordingly giving her the authority to adopt Shri Hemant Singh as his son. Consequently, Shri Hemant Singh (s/o Smt. Urmila Devi, daughter of late Maharaja Rana Udaibhan Singh) was adopted by Smt. Malvender Kaur according to the wishes of her late husband vide Deed of Adoption dated 5.11.1954. Further case of the appellant is that a High Power Committee was constituted to examine the contentions of various claimants for succession to the gaddi of Dholpur. The said committee consisting of the then Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court, Maharaja of Bharatpur and Maharaja of Doongarpur recommended the name of Shri Hemant Singh as a ruler of the erstwhile State of Dholpur. The Government of India accepted the recommendation of the said committee and by letter dated 13/14.12.1956 recognised Shri Hemant Singh the adopted son of late Maharaja Udaibhan as successor to the gaddi of Dholpur with effect from 22.10.1954. The Government of India by another letter dated 13.12.1956 addressed to Smt. Malvender Kaur stating that she has been appointed as the new rulers adoptive mother to be the natural and legal guardian of Shri Hemant Singh who was then minor with instructions to take care of his interest in every way.
2. The property in dispute in the present appeal was given on rent to the respondent by Smt. Malvender Kaur on a monthly rent of Rs. 4/- which was inherited by Shri Hemant Singh being the adopted son of late Maharaja Udaibhan Singh. The appellant purchased certain property including the property in dispute in this appeal from Shri Hemant Singh by a registered sale-deed dated 10.10.1972. On such sale being made the rent note executed by respondent in favour of Smt. Malvender Kaur was handed over to the appellant by the landlord Shri Hemant Singh. Accordingto the appellant after he purchased the suit property he immediately intimated the same to the respondent who on demand of enhancement of rent, agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 40/-P.M. of the suit premises. The respondent had paid rent to him for the months of November and December, 1972 but did not pay any rent thereafter. The appellant, therefore, served a notice dated 6.1.1976 to the respondent terminating the tenancy and demanded vacant possession of the suit premises, specifically mentioning that he was the adopted son of late Maharaja Udaibhan Singh of Dholpur. The respondent in his reply dated 30.1.1976 did not dispute the factum of adoption of Shri Hemant Singh but denied the title of the appellant as also any privity of contract of tenancy with him.
3. The appellant filed suit for eviction against the respondent on the grounds of denial of title, bonafide necessity of the premises in suit, default in payment of rent and material alterations. The respondent contested the suit by filing the written statement denying all the grounds of eviction alleged by the appellant. The respondent took the stand that he was the tenant of Smt. Malvender Kaur and that Shri Hemant Singh was not the legally constituted successor to late Maharaja Udaibhan Singh and as Shri Hemant Singh was the son of the daughter of Maharaja Udaibhan Singh, he inherited no interest in the property. The respondent took the stand that on the death of Shri Udaibhan Singh, his widow Smt. Malvender Kaur became successor. He also denied attornment of tenancy by oral notice or that he agreed to pay rent at Rs. 40/- per month to the appellant.
4. The trial Court decreed the app
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
