GOPI @ GOVERDHANNATH (D) BY LRS. & ORS. versus SRI BALLABH VYAS

Citation: [2022] 19 S.C.R. 427 · Decided: 22-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
427
GOPI @ GOVERDHANNATH (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
v.
SRI BALLABH VYAS
(Civil Appeal No. 6827 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 22, 2022
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control
Act, 1960: s. 10(2)(i), 10(2)(vi) and 10(3)(a) – Eviction of tenant –
Original owner of the property leased out the property to the
predecessor in interest of the appellants and they were paying rent
to the owner – Case of the respondent that his father had purchased
the said property vide registered sale deed – Respondent filed petition
for eviction of tenant-appellant no. 2 and 3 and others from shop
on the ground of non-payment/default in payment of rent, tenant’s
denial of the title of the landlord not being bona fide, and landlord’s
right to be put in the possession of property for his own business
use – Appellants denied the title of the respondent as also claimed
title over the schedule property contending that they purchased the
same from the original owner – However, the tenant directed to
vacate the schedule property – Said order upheld by the appellate
authority and the High Court – Interference with – Held: Not called
for – When the respondent, as landlord, claimed eviction on the
ground of tenants’ denial of his title over the petition schedule
property and to establish such denial as not being bonafide
produced its registered sale deed, the appellants and their
predecessors-in-interest could not justify the denial merely by
asserting that their predecessor-in-interest, had purchased it for a
valid consideration, without producing any supporting material(s)
admissible in evidence – In respect of the sale of an immovable
property, worth value which makes the sale deed compulsorily
registrable, the genuineness of the denial of title cannot be decided
based on presumptions and oral assertations ignoring a valid
registered document – Concurrent findings of the courts below that
the title of the respondent was malafidely denied by the appellants
is the rightful conclusion on appreciation of the facts and evidence
obtained in this case – Nothing that would establish non-
consideration of any material or consideration of irrelevant material,
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 427
427
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
to arrive at the finding that the requirement to get vacant possession
of the petition schedule property of the respondent is malafide – In
view thereof, no reason to hold that such findings are infected with
perversity or manifest injustice.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 When the respondent, as landlord, claimed
eviction on the ground of tenants’ denial of his title over the
petition schedule property and to establish such denial as not
being bonafide produced its registered sale deed, the appellants
and their predecessors—in-interest could not justify the denial
merely by asserting that their predecessor-in-interest, had
purchased it for a valid consideration of Rs.15,000/- in the year
1985, without producing any supporting material(s) admissible
in evidence. This is because in respect of the sale of an
immovable property, worth value which makes the sale deed
compulsorily registrable, the genuineness of the denial of title
cannot be decided based on presumptions and oral assertations
ignoring a valid registered document. Section 9 of the Transfer
of the Property Act states that a transfer of property can be made
without writing in every case in which writing is not expressly
required by law. But then, as per Section 54 of the TP Act, the
sale of immovable property of a value of Rupees one hundred
and upwards can be made only under a registered instrument.
Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 speaks of
documents of which registration is compulsory. As per Clause
(b) of sub-Section (1) thereof non-testamentary instruments which
of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in
immovable property, shall be compulsorily registered. [Para 18,
19][436-E-H; 437-E-F]
1.2 The oral evidence adduced by the respondent is to the
effect that his father had purchased the petition schedule property
vide registered sale deed dated 27.06.1985. Per contra, on behalf
of the appellants what is pleaded and argued is that the petition
schedule property was purchased by their predecessors-in-
interest, from the very same vendor in the year 1985, for a valid
consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. It is in this context that the sale
deed would act as a sure and 

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