M/S. KAMAKSHI BUILDERS versus M/.S. AMBEDKAR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 339 · Decided: 18-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. KAMAKSHI BUILDERS 
v. 
MIS. AMBEDKAR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ORS. 
MAY 18, 2007 
(S.B. SINHA & MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Rent control and eviction: 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882/Limitation Act, 1963; Articles 65 & 67: 
Tenancy-Tenant-Landlord issuing notice to tenant terminating 
tenancy-Tenant did not deliver vacant possession and continued to tender 
rent-Tenant allegedly acquiring title of the tenanted premises by way of 
oral gift from Landlord-Landlord entering into a partnership agreement 
with a builders & Ors.-Partner acquiring ownership of no property in terms 
of an Arbitration Award-Notice to tenant for payment of rent-Suit for 
recovery of possession and arrears of rents-Decreed by Trial Court-
Recovered by High Court-On appeal, held a person who is claiming title 
of the property by reason of an oral gift, a heavy burden lay on him to prove 
the same-Tenant is an educational society claiming such title, registration 
A 
B 
c 
D-
of the gift deed was expected of it-Acquisition of ownership of the property E 
by way of gift, wholly without consideration is not expected of a registered 
society-A letter purported to be issued by landlord, donor gifting the property 
to tenent but the same had not been proved-Adverse inference could be 
drawn which would have gone against the interest of the tenant-Besides, 
in making an oral gift by an owner of no property in favour of his tenant 
actual delivery of possession is imperative at point of time status of tenant F 
merged from te11ant to lessee-The same was within the special knowledge 
of the Landlord-Thus, onus lay heavily on him to prove the same-Neither 
did, the tenant file any application for mutation of its nature before the 
Revenue Authorities nor it take any steps to let others know about change 
of his status as claimed-Acquiescence on the part of the tenant did not G 
confer any title on him, conduct is a relevant fact but thereby no title could 
be conferred-Non examination of Landlord though would give rise to a 
presumption but by reason of presumption alone, the burden is not discharged/ 
a title is not created-Since the claim of the tenant was based on a title, the 
339 
H 
340 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A onus was on him to prove the same but he failed to discharge the burden 
under the circumstances-Trial Court committed no error in passing a decree 
in favour of the plaintiff. 
Limitation Act, 1963: 
B 
Article 67-Applicability of-Held: not applicable-Article 67 is a 
special provision it would apply in a case where tenant was ceased to be 
a tenant. 
Respondent No. 3 was the owner of a property which was let out to 
Respondent No.1, on a monthly rent by a deed of lease dated 16.05.1973; the 
C period of lease was expired in 1975. Respondent No.1, however, did not 
surrender the tenancy or deliver vacant possession of the tenanted premises 
to Respondent No.3. However, it tendered rents till December 1976. Later the 
landlord entered into a development agreement with the managing partner of 
the appellant-builde~ and others. However, disputes having arisen between 
D them, the same were referred to an arbitrator. An arbitration award was passed 
in terms whereof the appellant-partner became the owner of the property. the 
tenant was called upon to pay rents in respect of the suit property by issuing 
a notice; in reply, respondent no. 1 asked the appellant to furnish the evidence 
in proof of the ownership of the suit property. It however, did not disclose that 
it bad acquired any ownership by reason of a purported oral gift made by the 
E then Landlord as claimed later. As it failed to vacate the premises, a suit for 
recovery of possession and arrears of rents and also for damages for wrongful 
use and occupation of the property was filed by the appellant/partner, which 
was decreed by trial court. On appeal the order oftbe trial court was reversed 
by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal 
F 
Appellant-partner contended that the High Court had failed to take into 
consideration that Respondent No. 3 being admittedly the owner of the 
property, the burden lay on Respondent No. 1, tenant, who had alleged an oral 
gift was made in its favour, and it having failed to prove the same, assuming 
that the landlord did not demand rent or did not take step therefore, he cannot 
G be said to have proved its case; and that the question of the tenant acquiring 
any title by adverse possession would not arise, as at all material 

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