MADAN MOHAN SINGH versus VED PRAKASH ARYA

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 1060 · Decided: 05-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1060
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
MADAN MOHAN SINGH
v.
VED PRAKASH ARYA
(Civil Appeal Nos. 814-815 of 2021)
MARCH 05, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Eviction of unauthorised occupants – Appellant was allotted
a booth – The allotment letter specifically provided that appellant
had no right to transfer his rights directly or indirectly and was
also restrained from subletting the booth – Appellant entered into a
partnership deed dated 18.12.1976 with the respondent for carrying
out the business of cycle repairing – However, later partnership
was dissolved and respondent became an employee of the appellant
in the booth – Dispute arose between the appellant and the
respondent – Appellant sought possession of the booth – Respondent
took the defence that he was the tenant of the premises which was
let out to him in 18.12.1976 – The Chief Administrator in its order
dated 04.03.1986 had concluded that the respondent was a servant
of the hirer/appellant – Held: The present is not a case where
respondent claimed any rent agreement – There was no rent receipt
filed by the respondent in support of his claim of tenancy – When
there is no evidence of taking premises on rent and it is admitted by
respondent that he had not maintained any record of accounts of
payment of rent, there is no base for holding that relationship of
landlord and tenant is proved – Thus, respondent had failed to prove
any documents pertaining to tenancy – One more fact to be noticed
is that the defendant claimed his tenancy with effect from 18.12.1976
– On 18.12.1976, admittedly partnership deed was signed both by
the plaintiff and defendant which was before the Court – When the
parties signed a document and entered into a partnership deed,
they cannot wish away the consequences which flow from the signing
of deed – The appellant having categorically denied the tenanacy
and there being no evidence with regard to the tenancy, there is no
doubt in concluding that respondent was not a tenant of the premises
– Clause 12 of the Allotment Letter prohibited the hirer from subletting
the premises or any part thereof and decision of the Chief
Administrator was stated to be final in case of dispute – The finding
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 1060
1060
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1061
of the Chief Administrator dated 04.03.1986 cannot be ignored –
Therefore, the Estate Officer directed to put the appellant immediately
in possession of the premises of Booth.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The categorical finding recorded by the trial court
is that the respondent-defendant failed to prove any documents
pertaining to the tenancy. The tenancy is a relationship which is
created between two parties. The agreement of tenancy can be
both by writing or oral. Even if there is oral agreement of tenancy,
the Court has to look into the circumstances and intention of the
parties and other material to conclude as to whether there was
any tenancy or not. The present is not a case where defendant
claimed any rent agreement. The defendant has come up with a
case that he is paying rent at the rate of Rs.450/- per month.
Defendant in his written statement has stated that appellant-
plaintiff has never issued any rent receipt. Thus, present is not a
case where there was any rent receipt filed by the defendant in
support of his claim of tenancy. [Para 17][1070-A-C]
2. When there is no evidence of taking premises on rent
and it is admitted by DW-2/respondent that he had not maintained
any record of accounts of payment of rent, there is no base for
holding that relationship of landlord and tenant is proved. The
trial court itself has held that defendant had failed to prove any
documents pertaining to tenancy. The First Appellate Court, thus,
has rightly come to the conclusion that findings of the trial court
that the respondent-defendant is a tenant is based on the surmises
and conjectures. [Para 19][1070-G-H]
3. One more fact to be noticed is that the defendant claimed
his tenancy with effect from 18.12.1976. On 18.12.1976, admittedly
partnership deed was signed both by the plaintiff and defendant
which was before the Court. The defendant had not denied the
execution of partnership deed but he wanted to wish-away the
partnership deed saying that it was a sham document to save the
hirer from rigours of clause 12 of the Allotment Order. When the
parties signed a document and entered into a partnership deed,
they cannot wish away the consequences which flow from the
MAD

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