APOLLO ZIPPER INDIA LIMITED versus W. NEWMAN AND CO. LTD.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 374 · Decided: 20-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  3 S.C.R.
              APOLLO ZIPPER INDIA LIMITED
                                          v.
                            W. NEWMAN AND CO. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 4249 of  2018)
APRIL 20, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Rules of High Court at Calcutta (Original Side), 1914:
Chapter XIII-A-Rules 1(B), 6 and 9 – Leave to defend –
Permissibility – Suit premises let out to defendant (tenant) – By
original owner (a Company) – At monthly rent of Rs. 40,000/- –
Later Company was taken over by the State Government by statutory
enactments – Consequently the ownership of suit premises
transferred to the Authority of the State – Thereafter, the State vested
all the assets of the Authority with the appellant-company – Thereby
appellant-Company became absolute owner of the suit premises –
Quit Notice was sent to the tenant by the appellant-company u/s.
106 of Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy and
demanding arrears of rent and vacant possession – Finding no reply
to the notice, appellant-company filed summary eviction suit –
Respondent-tenant sought leave to defend the suit on three grounds
(i) monthly rent of suit premises being Rs. 1600/-, suit was liable to
be filed under Tenancy Act and not under Transfer of Property Act;
(ii) ownership of the plaintiff was not clear moreso for want of
attornment made by the tenant of plaintiff’s ownership (iii) there is
dispute as regards the amount of monthly rent – Single Judge of
High Court declining to grant leave to defend decreed the suit – In
appeal, Division Bench of High Court granted unconditional leave
to defend the suit – On appeal, held: Change of ownership from
original owner to the State and then from State to the plaintiff-
company is a matter of record – In the facts of the case, ownership
of the plaintiff was also attorned and accepted by the defendant-
tenant – Therefore, the tenant cannot raise plea questioning the
title of the plaintiff and the plea of attornment – The evidence on
record proves that the monthly rent of the premises was Rs. 40,000/
- and not Rs. 16,00/-  – Since  the monthly rent of the premises
exceeded the limit prescribed u/s. 3(f) of Tenancy Act, the Tenancy
[2018] 3  S.C.R. 374
                                                374
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
375
Act would have no application to the premises – Therefore, summary
suit taking recourse to Transfer of Property Act r/w r.1(B) of Rules,
is maintainable – Defendant-tenant failed to raise any arguable
and substantial defence as required u/r. 6 r/w r.9 – Rent Control
and Eviction – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s. 106 – West Bengal
Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – s. 3(f) – Great Eastern Hotel (Taking
Over of Management) Act, 1975 – Great Eastern Hotel (Acquisition
of Undertaking) Act, 1980 – ss. 3(1) 3(2) and 5(11).
Evidence:
Standard of proof – To prove title – In eviction suit – Held: In
eviction suit landlord is not expected to prove his title like what he
is required to prove in a title suit – Rent Control and Eviction.
Rent Control and Eviction:
Eviction suit – Challenge to the title of the landlord – Scope
of – Held: By virtue of s. 116 of Evidence Act, tenant is estopped
from challenging the title of his landlord – However, tenant is entitled
to challenge the derivative title of an assignee of the original
landlord – However, this right of the tenant is subject to the caveat
that tenant has not attorned to the assignee – If the tenant pays rent
to the assignee or otherwise accepts the assignee’s title, it results in
creation of attornment, which, in turn deprives the tenant to challenge
the derivative title – Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 116.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The grounds, which were pressed in service by
the respondent, to seek leave to defend the suit are neither
arguable nor have any prima facie merit therein and, therefore,
there does not arise any need to have any trial in the suit on
merits on such grounds. [Para 43] [385-D]
2. In an eviction suit filed by the landlord against the tenant
under the Rent Laws, when the issue of title over the tenanted
premises is raised, the landlord is not expected to prove his title
like what he is required to prove in a title suit. [Para 45] [385-F]
Sheela & Ors. v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash (2002)
(3) SCC 375 : [2002] 2 SCR 177;  Boorugu Mahadev
& Sons & Anr. v. Sirigiri Narasing Rao & Ors. (2016) 3
SCC 343 : [2016] 1 SCR 530 – relied on.
 APOLLO ZIPPER IN

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.