How defect in Notice U/S 106 of Transfer of property Act regarding title of landlord in eviction suit is cured?

 A perusal of the above extracted portion clearly shows that the vendors agreed and confirmed that they had on 26.09.1998 duly executed the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the purchaser. The original Deed of Conveyance was annexed and marked Exhibit-A. The vendors further agreed and confirmed that for all practical purposes, the said land and the premises described in the Second Schedule written thereunder shall be deemed to have been conveyed to the purchaser (plaintiff) as from 26.09.1998 and that they have done no act, deed, matter or things whereby they prevented from executing or granting or conveying the said land and the premises. Applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Official Trustees of W.B. (supra) to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the vendors admitted and acknowledged the fact of conveying the land and the premises, more particularly described in the Second Schedule, to the plaintiff. It is not in dispute that the suit premises forms part of the Second Schedule. The plaintiff, therefore, for all intent and purport became owner. As mentioned earlier, the Deed of Confirmation was executed and lodged for registration on 03.08.1999 and was duly registered on 03.01.2005. In view of Section 47 of the Registration Act, the Deed of Confirmation is operative from 03.08.1999. As mentioned earlier, plaintiff had issued notice of termination on 27.08.2000 and 28.08.2000. The Suit is instituted in the year 2002. Thus, when the plaintiff had issued termination notice and instituted Suit, he was owner of the suit premises. The defect of non-registration of Deed of Conveyance was cured by execution of Deed of Confirmation. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Shah that the finding recorded by the Appellate Court in paragraph 28 is legally incorrect.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Revision Application No. 180 of 2010

Decided On: 05.04.2019

Mahendra Valji Rathod  Vs.  National Radio and Electronics Company

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.G. Ketkar, J.

Citation: 2019(5) MHLJ 795

Print Page

How landlord should prove his title in eviction suit against tenant?

 It is a settled principle of law laid down by this Court that in an eviction suit filed by the landlord against the tenant under the Rent Laws, when the issue of title over the tenanted premises is raised, the landlord is not expected to prove his title like what he is required to prove in a title suit.

46. In other words, the burden of proving the ownership in an eviction suit is not the same like a title suit. (See Sheela and Ors. v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash MANU/SC/0150/2002 : 2002 (3) SCC 375, Para 10 at page 383 and also Boorugu Mahadev & Sons and Anr. v. Sirigiri Narasing Rao and Ors. MANU/SC/0044/2016 : 2016 (3) SCC 343, Para 18 at page 349).

47. Similarly, the law relating to derivative title to the landlord and when the tenant challenges it during subsistence of his tenancy in relation to the demised property is also fairly well settled. Though by virtue of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, the tenant is estopped from challenging the title of his landlord, yet the tenant is entitled to challenge the derivative title of an assignee of the original landlord of the demised property in an action brought by the assignee against the tenant for his eviction under the Rent laws. However, this right of a tenant is subject to one caveat that the tenant has not attorned to the assignee. If the tenant pays rent to the assignee or otherwise accepts the assignee's title over the demised property, then it results in creation of the attornment which, in turn, deprives the tenant to challenge the derivative title of the landlord. [See Bismillah De (dead) by Legal Representatives v. Majeed Shah MANU/SC/1557/2016 : 2017 (2) SCC 274 Para 24]

48. It is equally well-settled law with regard to attornment that it does not create any new tenancy but once the factum of attornment is proved then by virtue of such attornment, the old tenancy continues. (See Uppalapati Veera Venkata Satyanarayanaraju and Anr. v. Josyula Hanumayamma and Anr. MANU/SC/0343/1961 : AIR 1967 SC 174).

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4249 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 27775 of 2017)

Decided On: 20.04.2018

Apollo Zipper India Limited Vs. W. Newman and Co. Ltd.

Print Page

Whether transfer of right of landlord can take effect only if tenant attorns to him?

 From perusal of the aforesaid Section, it is manifest
that after the transfer of lessor’s right in favour of the
transferee, the latter gets all rights and liabilities of the
lessor in respect of subsisting tenancy. The Section does not
insist that transfer will take effect only when the tenant
attorns. It is well settled that a transferee of the landlord’s
rights steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights
and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the
subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that the
transfer of the right of the landlord can take effect only if the
tenant attorns to him. Attornment by the tenant is not
necessary to confer validity of the transfer of the landlord’s
rights. Since attornment by the tenant is not required, a
notice under Section 106 in terms of the old terms of lease
by the transferor landlord would be proper and so also the
suit for ejectment.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3391 OF 2015
(arising out of S.L.P.(C) NO.19487 of 2014)
Dr. Ambica Prasad 
Versus
Md. Alam and another

M. Y. EQBAL, J.
Citation; 2015 (4) ALLMR 408 SC

Print Page