KUNDAN MAL versus GURUDUTTA

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 330 · Decided: 25-01-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

KUNDAN MAL 
v. 
GURUDUTTA 
• 
JANUARY 25, 1989 
/M.fl. KANIA. AND LA.LIT MOHAN SHARMA, JJ.] 
/lajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950: 
Section 13(1)(f)-Tenant denying title of landlord-When arises-
f)e11ial to be clear and in unequivocal terms. 
The appellant was inducted into the structure in question by tbe 
C O\l'l'er in 1953. In 19(i9, tbe owner died and some dispute arose between 
his lq:al representatives and the respondent. The dispute was finally 
decided in favour of the respondel!t. The appellant duly recognised him 
;is landlord and started paying rent. 
p 
II! 1973, in response to a notice received from tbe Municipal 
Aut!torities asking him to remove the disputed structure on the ground 
!hat it was erected on Government land, the appellant was forced to file 
a ~uit in the Civil Court, challenging the validity of the notice and 
+ 
praying f!Jr injunction against the Municipal authorities from interfer-
"' 
jµg with hjs possessipn. 
E 
F 
Tile resp!ll•dent thereafter filed a suit against the appellant on the 
gnmn!ls of dffault in payment of rent and denial of his title by him. It 
was alleged that the al'pellant l!ad challenged the respondent's title in 
the plaitit filed in the earlier suit. The case of default in payment of rent 
W?~ ·rejected, b11t the suit was decreed on the ground of denial of title. 
On appeal, the Additional District Judge confirmed the decree 
and held that the statements in the plaint amounted to disclaimer and, 
in aqy event, the appellant had failed to acknowledge the landlord's title 
therein and consequently he was liable to eviction under cl.(f) of s. 13(1) 
of the Act. The aPl'ellant's second appeal was also rejected hy the High 
q C\l\IIt. >1t the ild~~iol!c stage. 
AU\l~Wl: th• 1,1ppeal, 
"t:U>:. \II 1;1r11viclbtg disclaimer as a ground for eviction of a 
tt:WIP.A ii! cl.(t;) l)f s. 13(1) of the Raj3sthan Premises (Control of Rent 
H 31!d IJ:viction) Act, 1950, the Legislature decided to give effect to the 
330 
KiJNDAN MAL v. GURUDUTTA [SilARMJ;, J.] 
:Hi 
provisions of cl.(g) of s. Ill of the Transfer of Property Act, Ii!Si. tlie 
ptincipie of forfeiture on disciaimer is founded on the rule that a iiiaii 
cannot apj>tohate and reprobate at the same time. Since the tonse-
quen~e of iij>plying the rule is very serious, it must be held that tlie 
deillai has to be clear and in unequivocal terms. [3j4C-i> I 
In the instant case, the 1973 suit was not direcied against an'y of 
the defendants excepting the Municipality and the statements in tlie 
plaint were made by way of giving the background in' whieh the 
impugned notice by the Municipal officers had been issned. No teiief 
against the other defendants including the present respondent was 
prayed for. Even interpreting the plaibt in a manner as tatonrahie to 
the landlord as may be possible it has iii be accepted that the dotumeiit 
cannot be construed to clearly deny the respondent's title in unamhigtt-
ous terms. One thing that is coiispicuous is that the appeliailf did not 
claim any title in himself. He expressly described the character of his 
possession as that of a tenant. Examining the entire plaint in this back-
ground the ground contemplated under s. 13(1)(f) of the Act is ilot made 
out. [3348, E-FI 
' 
Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan v. Municipal Board of Sitapur 
and another, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1923, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. iiJ48 
A 
t 
of 1980. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dateci 11.3.80 of the Rajasiha11 
High Court in S.A. No. 52 of 1980. 
S. Ganesh and P.H. Parekh for the Appellant. 
S.S. Khanduja for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHARMA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
decision of the Rajasthan High Court confirming the decree of G 
eviction of the appellant from certain premises under s. 13(1)(f) of ihe 
Raj,,sthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 
(hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that he had denied 
the title of the respotident-landlotd. 
2. The appellant has been in possession of the siftictute in goes-
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
I 
E 
F 
G 
H 
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 
tion since 1953, when he was inducted therein by the owner one 
Nawab M. Ali Khan. In 1969 Nawab M. Ali Khan died, and it appears 
that some dispute arose between his legal representatives and the pre-
sent respondent no. !. It further appears that the dispute was finally 
settled in 

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