Whether landlord can initiate eviction proceeding even if he is not entitled to inherit tenanted property?

In the impugned order, the High Court held that it was Pydamma, respondent No. 1, who had inducted the appellants in the properties in question and it was also the finding of the High Court and also the trial court that the appellants continued to pay rent in respect of the properties in question for some period and thereafter stopped payment. On such findings, the High Court held that it was not open to the appellants to deny the title of properties in question of Pydamma in view of Section 116 of the Evidence Act. In the case of Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh MANU/PR/0010/1915, the Privy Council observed as follows:

A tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his landlords title, however, defective it may be, so long as he has not openly restored possession by surrender to his landlord.

(Emphasis Supplied)

This view was also recognized by this Court in Atyam Veerraju and Ors. v. Pechetti Venkanna and Ors. MANU/SC/0349/1965 : [1966]1SCR831 . Similar view has also been expressed in a later decision of this Court in the case of Tej Bhan Madan v. II Additional District Judge and Ors. MANU/SC/0536/1988 : AIR1988SC1413 in which it was held that a tenant was precluded from denying the title of the landlady on the general principles of estoppel between landlord and tenant. It was held that the principle, in its basic foundations, means no more than that under certain circumstances law considers it unjust to allow a person to approbate and reprobate. In our view, Section 116 of the Evidence Act is clearly applicable in the present case, as held by the High Court in the impugned order. The finding of fact of the High Court and the trial court that the appellants were let into possession by Pydamma and that possession was not restored to her by surrender, was based on consideration of material evidence on record, which cannot be disturbed by us. Therefore, in our view, even if respondent No. 1, Pydamma, was not entitled to inherit the properties in question of late Suryanarayana then also she could maintain the application for eviction and obtain a decree/order of eviction on the ground of default and sub-letting under the A.P. Tenancy Act. We keep it on record that the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants did not raise any objection on the findings of the High Court regarding default and sub-letting, before us.

14. In this connection, we may also point out that in an eviction petition filed on the ground of sub-letting and default, the court needs to decide whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists and not the question of title to the properties in question, which may be incidentally gone into, but cannot be decided finally in the eviction proceeding. In this view of the matter and in view of the discussions made herein above, we are of the view that the eviction petition filed by respondent No. 1 was maintainable in law and respondent No. 1 was also entitled to obtain a decree/order of eviction.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 149 of 2004

Decided On: 12.05.2006

Bhogadi Kannababu and Ors.

Vs.

Vuggina Pydamma and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.

Citation:(2006) 5 SCC 532

Print Page

What is concept of ownership in Rent control laws?

It is also now a settled principle of law that the
concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation
governed by Rent control laws has to be distinguished
from the one in a title suit. Indeed, ownership is a
relative term, the import whereof depends on the
context in which it is used. In rent control legislation,
the landlord can be said to be the owner if he is
entitled in his own legal right, as distinguished from
for and on behalf of someone else to evict the tenant
and then to retain control, hold and use the premises
for himself. What may suffice and hold good as proof

of ownership in landlord-tenant litigation probably
may or may not be enough to successfully sustain a
claim for ownership in a title suit. (vide Sheela & Ors.
vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, (2002) 3 SCC
375).
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.167 OF 2007

M/s Boorugu Mahadev & Sons V  Sirigiri Narasing Rao & Ors.

Citation;AIR 2016 SC433
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Print Page

Whether observation made by court in proceeding U/S 145 CRPC is relevant in rent control proceeding?

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 345 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 3989 of 2014)

Decided On: 13.01.2015

Surinder Pal Kaur Vs. Satpal

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.

We have considered the rival submissions of the parties on the above point. It is settled position of law that the observations made in the proceedings drawn Under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure do not bind the competent court in a legal proceedings initiated before it. A decision given Under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure has relevance in evidence to show one or more of the following facts:

(a) that there was a dispute relating to a particular property;
(b) that the dispute was between the parties;
(c) that such dispute led to the passing of a preliminary order Under Section 145(1) Code of Criminal Procedure or an order of attachment issued Under Section 146(1) Code of Criminal Procedure; and
(d) that the Magistrate found particular party or parties in possession or fictional possession of the disputed property.

12. In Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi MANU/SC/0863/2003 : (2004) 1 SCC 438, this Court has held, in paragraph 15, that the reasoning recorded by the Magistrate or other findings arrived at by him have no relevance and are not admissible in evidence before the competent court (except for the limited purposes enumerated above). Also, it was further held in said case that the words "competent court" as used in Sub-section (1) of Section 146 of the Code do not necessarily mean a civil court only. A competent court is one which has the jurisdictional competence to determine the question of title or the rights of the parties with regard to the entitlement as to possession over the property forming the subject-matter of proceedings before the Executive Magistrate.

Citation; AIR 2015 SC 2739

Print Page