RITA LAL versus RAJ KUMAR SINGH

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 403 · Decided: 13-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RITA LAL 
A 
v. 
RAJ KUMAR SINGH 
. SEPTEMBER 13, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 : 
Ss. 14(4) and (5)-Eviction of tenant on grounds o/bona fide requirement 
and arrears of rent-Summary procedure-Tenant seeking leave to defend C 
denying landlord-tenant relationship-Trial court refused the leave and decreed 
the suit-High Court in revision holding that a triable issue within the meaning 
of sub-sections (4) and (5) of s.14 did arise and leave to defend deserved to 
be granted to tenant-Held, there is a very clear admission made by the 
tenant of the title of the landlord in his deposition in an earlier suit-Tenant D 
has not furnished any explanation for his signatures on every page of rent 
note-Tenant having been inducted by landlord so long as he remains in 
possession, he cannot deny the title of his landlord in view of the rule of 
estoppe/ contained ins. 1/6 of Evidence Act-On/acts, the tenant is raising 
a plea which he is estopped from raising and, therefore, the plea raised by 
him seeking leave to defend does not amount to raising a triable issue-High E 
Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, ought not to have interfered with 
the well considered and reasoned order of trial court-Evidence Act-S. I 16-
Estoppel-Revisional jurisdiction of High Court. 
Vashu Deo v. Balkishan, [20021 2 SCC SO, relied on 
Charan Dass Dugga/ v. Brahma Nand, (19831 I SCC 301; Md. 
Fahimuddin v. Godhan Pd. Singh, (1992) 2 PLJR 352 and Bijoy Kumar 
Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors., (1992) I PLJR 123, referred to 
F 
S.14(5)-Triable issue-Raising a triable issue, as sub-section (5) of s. 
I 4 suggests, is disclosing by tenant in his affidavit such facts as would disentitle G 
the landlord from obtaining an order of evictio~If the Court is satisfied that 
though in the pleadings an issue is raised but that is not a triable issue then 
the Court is justified in refusing the leave to defend-A defence, which is 
practically moonshine, sham or illusory cannot be held to he raising a triable 
403 
H 
404 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A issue-;--Else the whole purpose behind enacting a provision for granting leave 
to defend, and not permitting a contest unless leave was granted, would stand 
defeated. 
B 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JUSISDICTION. Civil Appeal No. 5837 of 
2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.8.200 I of the Jharkhand at 
Ranchi High Court in C.R.No. 268 of 2001. 
Dhruv Mehta for M/s K.L.Mehta & Co, for the Appellant. S.B. Upadhyay 
for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
The appellant, a widow and having undergone a kidney transplant, 
D initiated an eviction petition under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease 
Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter "the Act", for short). 
According to the appellant, the respondent an employee of the appellant, was 
inducted into possession of the premises under an agreement of lease dated 
10th February, 1997. The grounds on which eviction is sough for are more 
than one and include the genuine requirement of the premises for landlord's 
E self occupation and the respondent being a defaulter in payment of rent. 
The respondent-tenant sought for leave to defend under sub- section (4) 
of Section 14 of the Act denying the landlord-tenant relationship and 
submitting that the suit property was owned by one R.N. Chakraborty, whose 
title on his death had devolved upon his son, Dr. Rajat Chakraborty and 
F from the latter the respondent had purchased the property under registered 
deed of sale dated 24th February, 1998. It was submitted that as there was 
no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, the respondent was not 
liable to pay rent and certainly not liable to be evicted. In the submission of 
the respondent, the pleading raised a triable issue and, therefore, leave· to 
G defend ought to have been granted. 
The learned Trial Court having taken into consideration the pleadings 
of the parties, the contents of the affidavits and the supporting documents 
formed an opinion that the pleas raised by the respondent-tenant were false 
and frivolous and wholly unsustainable in law and hence no erima facie case 
H was made out worth consideration for granting leave to defend. Leave to 
.... 
' 
RITA LAL v. RAJ KUMAR SINGH 
405 
defend was, therefore, refused. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Trial A 
Court, the tenant pre

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