LexKESHAR BAI versus CHHUNULAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2014) 1 S.C.R. 166 KESHAR BAI v. CHHUNULAL (Civil Appeal No.106 of 2014) JANUARY 7, 2014. [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] MADHYA PRADESH ACCOMMODATION CONTROL C ACT, 1961: s. 12(1 )(c) -- Suit for eviction - Tenant denying title of landlord - Held: Under s. 111 (g) of Transfer of Properly Act, lease is determined by forfeiture, if lessee denies lessor's title 0 -- Denial of landlord's title or disclaimer of tenancy by tenant is an act which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of landlord -- It is, therefore, covered bys. 12(1)(c) - In the instant case, there are several documents on record relating to ownership of appellant, aparl from registered sale E deed, yet, respondent refused to acknowledge appellant's title -- He denied it in his evidence -- In eviction proceedings the question of title to the properties in question may be incidentally gone into, but cannot be decided finally- s. 116 of Evidence Act is clearly applicable to such a situation -- High Courl erred in setting aside the concurrent finding of fact F recorded by courls below that respondent had denied title of appellant -- Impugned judgment of High Courl is set aside and eviction decree passed by trial courl and confirmed by first appellate court u/s 12(1 )(c) is restored -- Transfer of Properly Act, 1882 - s. 111 (g) - Evidence Act, 1972 - s. 116 G - Appeal. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: s.100 - Second appeal - Jurisdiction of High Courl - H 166 KESHAR BAI v. CHHUNULAL 167 Held: High Court should not interfere with a concurrent finding A of fact unless it is perverse. The appellant purchased a building, which included a room (suit premises) occupied by the respondent as a tenant. The respondent was informed of the transaction. 8 When in spite of notice, the respondent did not pay the rent, the appellant filed a suit under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on the grounds of non- payment of rent, denial of title, bona fide need etc. The respondent filed a written statement denying the title of C the appellant, any attornement between the parties as also any landlord-tenant relationship between him and the appellant. He even denied the genuineness of the sale deed. The trial court recorded a finding that the respondent-tenant denied the title of the appellant- landlady and, accordingly, cJecreed the suit uls 12(1)(c) D of the Act. The decree was confirmed by the first appellate court. However, the High Court set aside the eviction decree holding that in the facts of the case no decree uls 12(1)(c) of the Act could be passed. E Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is well settled that the High Court should not interfere with a concurrent finding of fact unless it is perverse. In the instant case, there is no perversity in the F concurrent finding of fact returned by the courts below warranting the High Court's interference. [Para 9] [173-B] I / , Deep Chandra Juneja v. Lajwanti Kathuria (dead) . through LRs. 2008 (10) SCR 684 = (2008) 8 SCC 497; Yash Pal v. Ram Lal & Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 239; and Firojuddin & G Anr. v. Babu Singh (2012) 3 sec 319 - relied on. State of Andgra Pradesh & Ors. v. D. Raghukul Pershad(dead) by LRs. & Ors. 2012 (6) SCR 1176 = (2012) 8 sec 584 - cited. H 168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R. A 1.2. Under s. 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the lease is determined by forfeiture, if the lessee denies the lessor's title. Denial of landlord's title or disclaimer of tenancy by tenant is an act which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the 8 landlord. It is, therefore, covered bys. 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Act. [Para 11] [174-A and C] Devasahyam v. P. Savithramma 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 255 = (2005) 7 sec 653 - relied on. C Sheela v. Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash 2002 (2) SCR 177 = (2002) 3 SCC 375 Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan v. Municipal Board of Sitapur AIR 1965 SC 1923 - cited. 1.3. In the instant case, there are several documents 0 on record relating to the ownership of the appellant, apart from the registered sale deed. Yet, the respondent refused to acknowledge the appellant's title. He denied it in his written statement and evidence. The High Court has accepted that in his cross-examination the E respondent has stated that he was not accepting the appellant as his landlady. Even denial of a landlord's title in the written statement
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.