Case Note & Summary
The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment against the respondent-defendant, alleging that the defendant was a tenant under one Smt. Chinnamma in the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/-. The plaintiff purchased the property from Smt. Chinnamma by a registered sale deed dated 21.8.2008, and the defendant attorned tenancy to her. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant became a chronic defaulter in payment of rent from the date of attornment and also denied her title in the written statement. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove her title and that the defendant was not a defaulter. The High Court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the plaintiff proved her title through the sale deed and that the defendant's denial of title in the written statement amounted to forfeiture of tenancy under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court also found that the defendant was a chronic defaulter, as no rent was paid since attornment. The High Court decreed the suit for ejectment, granting the defendant three months to vacate, and directed payment of arrears of rent at Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of suit till delivery of possession.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Ejectment - Denial of Title - Section 111(g) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The tenant's denial of the landlord's title in the written statement amounts to forfeiture of tenancy, entitling the landlord to ejectment. The trial court erred in holding that the plaintiff failed to prove title and that the tenant was not a defaulter. (Paras 10-14) B) Rent Control - Protection - Forfeiture - Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - A tenant who denies the landlord's title forfeits the protection of the Rent Control Act, and the civil court has jurisdiction to decree ejectment. The tenant's chronic default in payment of rent further justifies ejectment. (Paras 15-18) C) Evidence - Title - Sale Deed - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff proved her title through a registered sale deed dated 21.8.2008, and the tenant's bare denial without evidence does not shift the burden. The trial court's finding that the plaintiff failed to prove title is perverse. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant's denial of the plaintiff's title and chronic default in payment of rent entitles the plaintiff to a decree for ejectment, and whether the trial court erred in dismissing the suit.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree dated 06.09.2013 in O.S.No.1767/2010 passed by the III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, is set aside. Suit for ejectment is decreed with costs. Defendant is directed to vacate the suit schedule property within three months from the date of judgment and pay arrears of rent at Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of suit till delivery of possession.
Law Points
- Denial of landlord's title
- forfeiture of tenancy
- Section 111(g) Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- Section 96 CPC
- Rent Control Act protection
- attornment
- chronic default
