FGP LTD. versus SALEH HOOSEINI DOCTOR AND ANR.

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 995 · Decided: 15-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 14 S.C.R. 995 
' -+ 
FGP LTD. 
A 
,.... 
v. 
SALEH HOOSEINI DOCTOR AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6257 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 
B 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND ASOK KUMAR 
>-
GANGULY, JJ.] 
? 
Rent Control - Bombay Rent Act, 1947 - Suit by 
respondents against appellant for possession of property on c 
ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement - Decreed 
by Small Causes Court - Order upheld in appeal af)d in 
revision before High Court - Maintainability of the suit 
l 
challenged by appellant on basis of agreement to sell, 
- _).-
application of s. 53-A and specific performance (in terms of D 
the specific performance suit filed by it and pending in High 
Court) - Held: Challenge not tenable - Claim by appellant 
on question of specific performance of contract that he paid 
sale consideration money in respect of property under an 
agreement to sell contrary to material documents on record 
IE 
- Case based on specific performance not strong enough -
In any event, appellant was required to show that it either 
~ 
performed or was willing to perform its part of the contract, but 
.. 
admitted facts of the case are to the contrary - Doctrine of 
part performance under s. 53-A cannot be invoked -
F 
Argument of appellant on competence of respondents to file 
the suit also misconceived - Respondents were substituted 
as executors under the Will left behind by the original owner 
- They were also co-owners of the suit property - Transfer of 
Property Act, 1882 - s. 53-A - Doctrines - Doctrine of part G 
~·y 
performance. 
Rent Control - Title of landlord - Challenged - Held: 
Normally, a tenant's right to question the title of a landlord is 
' 
995 
H 
996 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A very limited in view of rule of law codified in s. 116 of the 
-1--
::_ 
Evidence Act - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.116. 
Will - Executor unable to act - Held: In such case, any 
other legatee having a beneficial interest may be admitted to 
8 prove the Will and letter of administration can be granted to 
him - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - ss.222 and 234. 
Will -
Vesting of property - On executor - Effect of 
probate - Held: Vesting does not take place as a result of 
probate - Grant of probate does not give title to -the executor 
C - It just makes his title certain - Indian Succession Act, 1925 
- ss.211 and 213. 
The property in question is located in a prime area 
in Mumbai. In 2001, the respondents i.e legal 
0 representatives of the erstwhile owner of the said 
property filed suit against the appellant-company in the 
Court of Small Causes under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 
for possession of the property on the ground of 
reasonable and bonafide requirement. The suit was 
E decreed by the Small Causes Court and the appellant 
was directed to handover vacant and peaceful 
possession of the property. The order was upheld by the 
appellate authority and again by the High Court in 
revision. 
F 
Before this Court, the maintainability of the said suit 
was challenged by the appellant on various grounds. 
It is the case of appellant-company that three 
agreements were executed between it and the owner of 
G the property in question; that the first one was entered 
into on 14-7-1981 whereby the erstwhile owner agreed to 
sell the property to the appellant for Rs.5 lacs and 
received the entire sale consideration of Rs.5 lacs; that 
the original owner executed a second agreement dated 
H 
FGP LTD. v. SALEH HOOSEINI DOCTOR AND ANR. 997 
;: 
J._ 
16-07-1981 and thereby let out the suit premises to the 
A 
appellant as a tenant and that another agreement dated 
20-7-1981 was also executed between the original owner 
and the appellant-company, whereby the original owner 
again agreed to sell the appellant-company the suit 
premises for the same price of Rs.5 lacs which the 
B 
original owner received on 14-07-1981. The further case 
>..__ 
of the appellant was that as sale in terms of the 
,. 
agreement dated 14-7-1981 was not completed within 
time, it gave a notice to the vendor to complete the sale 
and as it was not completed, the appellant thereafter filed c 
a suit for specific performance in 1991 which is still 
pending in the High Court. 
The appellant urged that by an agreement in writing, 
-~ 
the original owner of the property had contracted to . 
transfer for consideration the property in question in 
D 
favour of appellant-company and in part performance of 
the said contract, the appellant-company had taken 
poss

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