LexOM PRAKASH & ANR. versus MISHRI LAL (DEAD) REPRESENTED BY HIS LR. SAVITRI DEVI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2017] 4 S.C.R. 864 OM PRAKASH & ANR. v. MISHRI LAL (DEAD) REPRESENTED BY HIS LR. SAVITRI DEVI (Civil Appeal No. 4309 of 2017) MARCH 21, 2017 [ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and C Eviction) Act, 1972: s.21 - Application under - Also a suit for eviction by appellants-landlords, joint owners of property in question against predecessor-in-interest of the respondents (tenants) - The original defendant/tenant refused to acknowledge appellants as his landlords D though admitted tenancy under appellants' grandmother and then under their father - Trial court decreed the suit - High Court limiting itself to the aspect of proof of the Will, negated appellants' status as landlords, and dismissed their suit - On appeal, held: Appellants were joint owners by virtue of a compromise decree arrived at between appellants and other co-owners, having due regard to the E Will in question, in a suit filed by such other co-owners -The decree, in absence of any challenge thereto became final - More so, the status. of appellants as joint owners of suit premises, was not questioned at any stage of the proceedings by anyone interested in the title thereto - Thus, the dismissal of suit by High Court on the F sole ground that appellants had no locus to maintain the same in absence of formal proof of the Will was grossly misdirected - lmpugnedjudgments of High Court set aside - Suit of appellants decreed in full - Rent Control and Eviction. s.20(4) - Proviso -Applicability of- s.20(4) relieves the tenant G against his liability for eviction on the ground of default if condition therein is fulfilled - Proviso thereto, however, predicates that this benefit would not be available to a tenant who inter alia has built any residential building in the same city - Held: Jn the instant case, on the basis of evidence on record it is clear that the predecessor- i n-interes t of the respondents had constructed his own house H 864 OM PRAKASH v. MISHRI LAL (DEAD) REPRESENTED BY 865 HIS LR. SAVITRI DEVI elsewhere which dis-entitled him and consequently the respondents A to avail the benefit of protection uls.20(4). s.30 - Deposit of rent in Court in certain circumstances - When cannot be invoked as a defence against eviction - Notice by appellants/landlords, joint owners of property in question, to respondents/tenants requiring payment of rent to them as landlords B - On non-payment by respondents, eviction suit by appellants - Respondents pleaded no default in payment of rent as the rent was deposited in Court as required u/s.30 after appellants' father allegedly refused to accept the same - Held: The original defendant in terms of the notice was fully aware of the compromise decree and thus, the status of appellants as joint owners/landlords - Therefore, C his offer of rent to appellants father, who ceased to be the landlord, ·was not in compliance of s.30 to be availed as a defence against hjs/their eviction from suit premises - Thus, original defendant and consequently the respondents are defaulters and are liable to be evicted. D Rent Control and Eviction - Eviction suit by co-owners - Reiterated, a suit for eviction can be maintained by one of the co- owners without joining the other co-owners if such other co-owners do not object. Evidence Act, 1872 - s.116 - Estoppel - Responde,nts-tenants though accepting tenancy under appellants' grandmother and then after her death under their father, denied to acknowledge appellants E as landlords in suit for eviction - Held: A tenant during the continuance of tenancy is debarred on the doctrine of estoppel from denying the title of his landlord through whom he claims tenancy - F Respondents estopped uls.116 to dispute the status of appellants as their landlord in a suit for eviction. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD:l.1 The appellants claimed ownership of the suit premises on the basis of the Will dated 28.12.1986 executed by G their grandmother. A compromise was arrived at between the appellants and other co-owners having due regard to the said Will, whereby the ownership of the suit premises in favour of the appellants and such co-owners was declared and a decree to that effect was passed. This decree, indisputably, had become final, in H 866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R. A absence of any challenge thereto before any forum. In the face of this compromise decre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.