BISMILLAH BE (DEAD) BY LRS. versus MAJEED SHAH

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 719 · Decided: 29-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 8 S.C.R. 719 
BISMILLAH BE (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v. 
MAJEED SHAH 
(Civil Appeal Nos.11865-66 of2016) 
NOVEMBER29, 2016 
[A.K. SIKRI AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Suit for eviction u/ss.12(1)(a), 12(1)(c), 12(1)(e) and 12(1)(m) 
of MP. Accommodation Control Act - Tenant-defendant denied 
relationship of landlord and tenant with the plaintiff and challenged 
derivative title of the plaintiff - Suit dismissed on the ground that 
there was no landlord tenant relationship between the plaintiff and 
defendant - The order upheld in first and second appeal - On 
appeal, held: Though the tenant is entitled to challenge the derivative 
title of the land-lord in an action brought by the assignee/vendee 
against the tenant, but once the assignee/vendee proves his title to 
the demised property, the original tenancy devolves on the assignee/ 
vendee and the assigneelvendee acquires the status of new land-
lord - In the present case, the plaintiff has proved her title to the 
suit property as well as the relationship of landlord and tenant with 
the defendant - Matter is remanded to the trial court for deciding 
the suit afresh on merits - Cost of Rs.50001- imposed - Madhya 
Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - ss. 12(1)(a), 12(1)(c), 
12(1)(e) and 12(1)(111). 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Though by virtue of Section 116 of the Evidence 
Act, 1872, the tenant is estopped from challenging the title of his 
landlord during continuance of the tenancy, yet the tenant/lessee 
is entitled to challenge the derivative title of an Assignee/Vendee 
of the original landlord (Lessor) of the demised property in an 
action brought by the AssigneeNendee against the tenant for his 
eviction from the demised property under the Rent laws. This 
right of a tenant is, however, subject to one caveat that the tenant/ 
lessee has not attomed to the AssigneeNendee. In other words, 
if the tenant/lessee pays rent to the Assignee/Vendee of the 
719 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
720 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
A tenanted property then it results in creation of an attornment 
between the parties which, in turn, deprives the tenant/lessee to 
challenge the derivative title of an Assignee/Vendee in the 
proceedings. [Para 25] [725-G-H; 726-A-B] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
1.2 
However, once the Assignee/Vendee proves his 
title to the demised property, the original tenancy devolves on 
the Assignee/Vendee and tenant/lessee by operation of law on 
the same terms' and conditions on which it was entered into with 
the original.landlord/lessor and continues till either modified by 
the parties o'r is determined by the landlord in accordance with 
law. It enables the AssigneeNendee to acquire the status of a 
"new landlord" in place of the original landlord of the demised 
premises qua tenant/lessee. [Para 26] (726-C-D] 
Law of Evidence by Sarkar, l61h Edition, pages 2106-
2108 - referred to. 
2.1 The appellant (plaintiff) has proved her title to the suit 
house so also the relationship of landlord and tenant with the 
respondent in relation to suit house, for more than one reason. 
First the ownership of the original owner of the suit house is 
admitted. Second, it is also an admitted fact that the respondent 
was inducted as a tenant by the original owner in the suit house. 
Third, the respondent, in his reply, has admitted the aforesaid 
two facts in his reply to the appellant's legal notice and -in of hts· 
written statement. Fourth, the suit house was sold by the inheritor 
of the original owner after obtaining permission from Income Tax 
Department by registered deed of sale dated 16.09.1974 and 
further. it was sold to six persons, which included the appellant, 
by another registered deed of sale dated 16.09.1974. Fifth, these 
six persons (co-owners) then by registered deed of partition dated 
14.03.1984 effected partition inter se and the suit house fell to 
the share of the appellant. Sixth, all these five facts enumerated 
herein were duly proved by the appellant by first pleading in the 
G plaint and then by filing documentary evidence. Seventh, the 
appellant served quit notice to the respondent setting out therein 
all these facts. Eighth, the respondent failed to adduce any 
evidence in rebuttal to disprove the appellant's case except bald 
denial of the appellant's title over the suit house and lastly, the 
H 
respondent having admitted the ownership of his original landlord 
BISMILLAH BE (DEAD) BY LRS. v

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