SHEELA AND ORS. versus FIRM PRAHLAD RAI PREM PRAKASH

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 177 · Decided: 04-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
SHEELA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
FIRM PRAHLAD RA! PREM PRAKASH 
MARCH 4, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
MP. Accommodation Control Act, 1961-Section 12 (/) (c)-Eviction-
What is denial of landlord's title or disclaimer of tenancy by tenant and its C 
effect on right of landlords to evict tenant-Held, such denial is an act which 
is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of landlord-Thus is 
ground of eviction-For such denial tenant should have renounced his character 
as tenant and in clear and unequivocal terms set up title of landlords in 
himself or in a third party-Tenant bonafide to call upon.landlord to prove D 
his ownership to protect himself from eviction but without disowning his 
character of possession over tenancy premises as tenant-This intention of 
tenant is to be gathered from the nature of plea-In the instant case, plea 
raised by the tenant in written statement is not clear and unequivocal denial 
of title of landlord, thus tenant not liable to be evicted under Section 12 (I) 
~-
E 
Original owner of the suit premises inducted appellant ;is tenant Since 
he was issueless he adopted a son and bequeathed his property to him. After 
the death of the original owner, adopted son and his sons formed a registered 
partnership. Respondent-firm filed suit for eviction of tenant claiming to be F 
the owner of the suit premises. On the ground of bona fide requirement for 
continuing their business and rebuilding the accommodation. Tenant pleaded 
that he was not liable to be evicted since respondent-firm were not owners of 
the suit premises. However, et other places tenant admitted respondent as 
landlords having paid rent to the respondent after the death of original owner 
and also initiating proceedings for fixing standard rent by impleading the G 
respondent-firm as landlords. Trial Court found that the suit premises were 
in dilapidated condition and needed re-construction. However, it dismissed 
the suit since the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties was not 
established. Aggrieved respondent-firm filed appeal. First Appellate Court set 
aside the order of trial court in view of Section 12 (I) (c) of the M.P. 
177 
H 
178 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R . 
.. A Accommodation Control Act , 1961. However, tenant died during the 
pendency of first appeal and his legal representatives brought on record, filed 
second appeal which was dismissed. High Court upheld the decree passed by 
the First Appellate Court. Hence the present appeal. 
The. question which arose for consideration is what is denial of landlord's 
B title or disclaimer of tenancy and what impact it has on the landlord's right 
to evict and tenant's liability for eviction under the M.P. Accommodation 
Control Act, 1961. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Denial ofJandlord's title or disclaimer of tenancy by tenant 
C is an act which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of 
the landlord and hence is a ground for eviction of tenant within the meaning 
of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of M.P. Accommodation Control 
Act, 1961 •. To amount to such denial or disclaimer, as would entail forfeiture 
of tenancy rights and incur the liability to be evicted, the tenant should have 
D renounced his character as tenant and in clear and unequivocal terms set up 
title of the landlord in himself or in a third party. A tenant bona fide calling 
upon the landlord to prove his ownership or putting the landlord to proof of 
his title so as to.protect himself (i.e. the tenant) or to earn a protection made 
available to him by Rent Control Law but without disowning his character 
of possession over the tenancy' premises as tenant cannot be said to have denied 
E the title of landlord or disclaimed the tenancy. Such an act of the tenant does 
not attract applieability of Section 12 (1) (c). It is the intention of the tenant, 
as culled out from tbe nature of the plea raised by him, which is determinative 
of its vulnerability. [187-G-H; 188-A-B] 
1.2. The nature of the plea raised and the stand taken by the tenant in 
F the written statement and at the trial is that he is the tenant and the 
respondents·are the 'landlord', as defined in the Act, but the tenant demands 
proof of 'ownership' of the respondents over the suit property as it cannot 
be spelled out from the averments made in the plaint how the title over the 
property came t<_i vest f

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