Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a civil revision application filed by the defendants (M/s. Keshavdas Hassanand and others) against an order of the Trial Court refusing to strike out their defence under Order 15A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The plaintiffs (Chandan Ramchand Bhalla and others) had filed a suit for possession and mesne profits in respect of a building known as 'Kanchwala Building' situated at Dongri, Mumbai. The building was originally owned by Keshavdas Hassanand, who died on 21.4.1986 leaving a will dated 9.7.1984 bequeathing the property absolutely to his wife, Parmeshwaribai (defendant no.5). The plaintiffs are the sons of Ramchand and Hariram (sons of Keshavdas), while the defendants include the firm M/s. Keshavdas Hassanand (defendant no.1), Jamnadas (defendant no.2), and his sons Prakash and Haresh (defendants no.3 and 4). The plaintiffs claimed that they were the owners and landlords of the suit property by virtue of a deed of relinquishment executed by Parmeshwaribai in their favour. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' title and claimed that the property belonged to the firm and that they were co-owners. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order 15A CPC to strike out the defence of the defendants on the ground that they had denied the plaintiffs' title without any bona fide basis. The Trial Court dismissed the application, holding that the denial of title was not frivolous and that the defendants had raised a triable issue. The defendants challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court, after examining the pleadings and the law, held that the Trial Court had exercised its discretion properly and that the denial of title by the defendants was not without any basis, as they had claimed ownership through a will and a deed of relinquishment. The court observed that the remedy under Order 15A CPC is discretionary and should not be used to strike out defence merely because the tenant denies the landlord's title; the court must consider whether the denial is bona fide and whether the tenant has any prima facie evidence to support the claim. The High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the Trial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Striking Out Defence - Order 15A CPC - Denial of Title - The court considered whether the defence of a tenant denying the landlord's title should be struck out under Order 15A CPC. Held that mere denial of title without any supporting evidence or bona fide claim does not automatically warrant striking out of defence; the court must examine the pleadings and circumstances to determine if the denial is bona fide or a mere pretence. (Paras 1-10) B) Rent Control - Denial of Title - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Sections 12, 13 - The court noted that under the Rent Act, a tenant who denies the landlord's title may be liable for eviction, but the remedy of striking out defence under Order 15A CPC is discretionary and not automatic. The court must consider whether the denial is bona fide and whether the tenant has any prima facie evidence to support the claim. (Paras 5-8) C) Property Law - Lease - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 108(h) - The court observed that a tenant is estopped from denying the landlord's title during the continuance of the tenancy, but this estoppel does not prevent the tenant from acquiring a superior title after the tenancy ends. However, in the present case, the defendants' claim of ownership was based on a will and a deed of relinquishment, which were not proved and appeared to be an afterthought. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in refusing to strike out the defence of the defendants under Order 15A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when the defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs and claimed ownership of the suit property.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, upholding the Trial Court's order refusing to strike out the defence under Order 15A CPC. The court held that the Trial Court had exercised its discretion properly and that the denial of title by the defendants was not without any basis, as they had raised a triable issue.
Law Points
- Order 15A CPC
- striking out defence
- denial of title
- tenant
- mesne profits
- possession
- summary suit
- Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
- Section 12
- Section 13
- Section 108(h) Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
