Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Shri Swami Narayan Mandir, Amravati, through its Wahiwatdar, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 758 of 1988 for recovery of possession of an open plot of land admeasuring 2603 square feet bearing Plot No. 19, Gandhi Chowk, Amravati city, from the defendant Haribhau Rajaramji Rewasekar, who occupied the plot as a tenant. The plaintiff terminated the tenancy by notice dated 1.4.1988 and asked the defendant to vacate and pay arrears of rent. The defendant did not comply, leading to the suit. The trial court (Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati) decreed the suit on 19.9.1992, ordering possession and arrears of rent. The defendant appealed to the Additional District Judge, Amravati, who allowed the appeal on 5.12.1998, dismissing the suit. The plaintiff then filed the present second appeal. The legal issues were whether the defendant could deny the plaintiff's title after having attorned tenancy, and whether the notice to quit was valid under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had no title and that the notice was invalid. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was estopped from denying title under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that the notice was valid. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the defendant had taken the plot on rent and paid rent to the plaintiff, thus the defendant was estopped from denying the plaintiff's title. The court also held that the notice to quit was valid and unambiguous. The court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower appellate court, and restored the trial court's decree for possession and arrears of rent.
Headnote
A) Landlord-Tenant - Estoppel - Section 116 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Tenant cannot deny landlord's title during continuance of tenancy - The defendant, having taken the plot on rent and paid rent to the plaintiff, is estopped from denying the plaintiff's title. The court held that the tenant's denial of title was not bona fide and the plaintiff's title was established. (Paras 5-7) B) Transfer of Property Act - Notice to Quit - Section 106 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Validity of notice terminating tenancy - The notice dated 1.4.1988 was held to be valid and unambiguous, terminating the tenancy at the end of the month. The court held that the notice complied with Section 106 and the tenant's objections were without merit. (Paras 3-4) C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Substantial question of law - The appeal involved substantial questions of law regarding estoppel and validity of notice. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower appellate court's judgment, and restored the trial court's decree for possession and arrears of rent. (Paras 1, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the defendant-tenant can deny the plaintiff's title after having attorned tenancy, and whether the notice to quit was valid under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and order dated 5.12.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amravati in Regular Civil Appeal No. 247 of 1992, and restored the decree dated 19.9.1992 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati in Regular Civil Suit No. 758 of 1988, which decreed the suit for possession and arrears of rent.
Law Points
- Tenant estopped from denying landlord's title
- Section 116 Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- Lease of immovable property for manufacturing purposes
- Section 106 Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- Notice to quit must be valid and unambiguous
- Burden of proof on tenant to show title in another.
