DR. RANBIR SINGH versus ASHARFI LAL

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 847 · Decided: 21-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, FAIZAN UDDIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
DR. RANBIR SINGH 
v. 
ASHARFI LAL 
SEPTEBER 21, 1995 
[KULDIP SINGH AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.) 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Ss.100(1) & (2)-Second ap-
peal-Reapreciation of evidence and substituting its own conclusion by High 
Court-Held: Nonnally not within jurisdiction of High Cowt-{fl~less it could 
A 
B 
f onnulate substantial question of law. 
C 
Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 195(}-Section 3 
(iii) & (iv)-'Landlord' & 'Tenant'-Proof of relationship between Property 
sold by legally adopted son-duly inf onned by purchaser to tenant-Enhanced 
rent paid to the purchase1~Jn notice of eviction fact of adoption mentioned 
-Not denied by tenant in his reply-Circwnstances established privily of D 
contract between landlord and tenant. 
Eviction Suit-Based on privily of contract of tenancy-Proof of 
title-Held : Not gemiane though may be gone into, to decide relationship of 
tenant and landlord. 
The widow of ex-Maharaja of Dholpur adopted her daughter's son 
'H' vide an adoption deed. The Govt. recognised him, the successor to the 
'Gaddi' and appointed the widow as his adoptive mother, legal and natural 
guardian. 
The .property in dispute (private property of Maharaja) let on rent 
by his widow, was sold to the appellant by 'H' after having inherited the 
same by virtue of adoption deed. 
E 
F 
The appellant immediately brought the factum of purchase to the 
notice of the respondent and the respondent started paying enhanced rate. G 
After some time, when the respondent defaulted, appellant served notice, 
terminating his tenancy in which the factum of adoption was specifically 
mentioned, and in reply to the notice the same was not denied. 
A suit for eviction was filed by the appellant. The pleadings were 
reiterated by his evidence and P.W. 2 clarified privity of contract by H 
847 
848 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
deposing that the respondent had agreed to pay the rent to appellant at 
enhanced rate, the Trial Court decreed the suit on the ground of denial of 
title and bonafide need. 
B 
In the first appeal by the respondent, the court remanded the case 
to the Trial Court for finding on the question as to who will face greater 
hardship. The Trial Court held the question in favour of the appellant. On 
the basis of finding of Trial Court, the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the 
appeaL 
The Respondent filed a second appeal to the High Court which 
C allowed the appeal holding that 'H' acquired no title over the property so 
as to entitle him to transfer the same, as the widow of the late Maharaja 
was the sole owner of the private property of late Maharaja by virtue of 
Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937. It further held that recogni-
tion of rulership by the Govt. does not amount to recognition of any right 
to private property of the ruler. 
D 
E 
F 
In appeal to Supreme Court, the Appellant contended that in an 
eviction suit proof of title is not germane but relationship between the 
landlord and tenant is to be proved; and that on the basis of adoption 
deed 'H' also become successor to the private property of late Maharaja. 
The respondent contended that recognition by Govt. did. not make 
'H' successor to the private property and that attaining ownership to the 
suit property by 'H' could not be established. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The question of title of the property is not germane for 
decision of the eviction suit. In a case where a plaintiff institutes a suit for 
eviction of his tenant based on the relationship of the landlord and tenant, 
the scope of suit is very much limited in which a question of title cannot 
be gone into because the suit of plaintiff would be dismissed even if he 
G succeeds in proving his title but fails to establish the privity of contract of 
tenancy. In a suit for eviction based on such relationship, the .court has 
only to decide whether the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff or not, 
though the question of title if disputed, may incidentally be gone into, in 
connection with the primary question for determining the main question 
H about the relationship between the litigating parties. [855-F-G] 
( 
RANBIR SINGH v. ASHARFI LAL 
849 
1.2. It is established from the fact and dn:umsiauces of the case, that A 
the defendant had accepted himself to be a tt:nant of the plaintiff on a 
monthly rent of Rs.40 and thus there was a privity of contract of tenancy 
between the plaintiff and the defendant afte

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