Whether a person can be treated tenant on basis of inspection report?

It must be noted that simply because a man is in occupation over a particular property he cannot be termed as a tenant or a licensee on the basis of his occupation. A tenancy like any other fact is a fact which is to be proved by evidence. A person cannot be held to be tenant merely on basis of inspection report showing him to be in possession of the disputed property when neither any lease deed nor any rent note or any other piece of paper was placed on record in support of the contention.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

S.A. No. 372 of 1993

Decided On: 01.07.2008

 Francis  Vs.  Andrew and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.P. Bhangale, J.

Citation: 2008(6) MHLJ 450

Print Page

When burden of proof is on defendant to prove that he is tenant?

 The entire case of the appellant is based on the proposition that as he was occupying the suit premises since 1979, it was with the permission of the landlord and as he was allowed to stay on the suit premises, so it is to be inferred that rent was paid by him and accepted by the landlord. It is contended that the appellant has proved that he is a tenant then ground of encroachment as pleaded by the plaintiff goes away and the plaintiff has no right to claim possession on the ground of encroachment and so no relief either of perpetual injunction or mandatory injunction or possession can be granted in favour of the appellant. Thus, foundation of the case of the appellant is that he is a tenant of the respondent. This fundamental fact is required to be proved. Question is whether this fact can be proved in the absence of any documentary or sufficient oral evidence?

13. Admittedly, no documentary evidence either of rent receipt or any agreement is produced by the appellant in both the suits. The appellant tried to prove this fact with the help of these three witnesses. However, he did not mention anything about obtaining the suit property with the help of any middle-man. Had this suit property been obtained with the help of Mr. Bhandilkar, then this fact ought to have been mentioned by the appellant in the written statement. Oral evidence should pass a test of credibility. It is expected that party should take a consistent stand to build up his case from the initial stage of the suit. Admittedly, the respondent had let out few shops or premises near the suit premises, to other persons. However, that evidence will not establish the fact that therefore the suit premises was also let out to the appellant by the respondent-landlord. The fact of possession is not challenged as there is a prayer of the possession and relief to that extent is prayed by the plaintiff. Thus, the fact that the appellant is in possession of the suit property since 1979 is itself not helpful to the appellant to establish tenancy. Long possession or even permissive long possession cannot itself establish a person is a tenant of the landlord. It can be only said that he was allowed to stay or remain on the suit property for some period and for that period, his possession was tolerated and therefore he cannot be labelled as an encroacher for that period. As soon as a permission is withdrawn, the status of an occupant is converted into an encroacher. Thus, in the absence of any tenancy, no legal right is created in favour of the appellant against the respondent.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Second Appeal No. 504 of 1991, 

Decided On: 05.10.2012

Pandurang Dharma Gaikwad  Vs. Mahamudmuya Ahmadsaheb Patil

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, J.

Citation: 2013(2) MHLJ 949

Print Page

When sub tenant has failed to prove that he has become direct tenant of original landlord?

The very stand taken by the defendant in the written statement shows that he admits to have taken the suit premises on sublease from the plaintiff. And his specific plea is that he became a direct tenant under the original owners. In the light of the pleading of the defendant, the issue should have been framed in such a way as requiring proof by the defendant regarding surrender of lease by plaintiff and his becoming a direct tenant of the original owners. Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable here. The defendant wishes the court to believe that he became direct tenant of the original owner and therefore he must prove it. If he fails to prove, obviously plaintiff succeeds. The trial court has missed to notice this aspect.

 Now what needs to be further examined is whether the defendant has been able to prove his specific plea. Defendant who has adduced evidence as DW-1 has produced the lease deed dated 07.05.2002 as per Ex. D.1. Firstly this lease deed cannot be looked into as it is an unregistered instrument; since the duration of lease is three years, it should have been registered. Secondly, even if it can be looked into for collateral purpose of surrender of lease by the plaintiff, that aspect does not get established. In Ex. D1, there is a clear reference to suit premises being leased to plaintiff and the defendant being inducted as subtenant by the plaintiff. There is a recital that the erstwhile lessee requested the lessor i.e., the original owners to execute the lease agreement in favour of defendant. If this were to be the agreement reached among the original owners, the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff should have been a party to Ex. D.1. She is not a party to the said document. Therefore the defendant cannot say that by virtue of Ex. D.1 he became a direct tenant under the original owners.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

Regular First Appeal No. 121 of 2015

Decided On: 09.04.2018

 Fahima Irfan Patel  Vs. Troop Basheer Ahmed

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J.

Citation: AIR 2018 Karnataka 167

Print Page

Whether tenancy rights of other legal heirs of deceased tenant are wiped off if rent receipt is in name of one legal heir?

 This ratio raises the logical question as to whether bequest of tenancy by a will, deed or gift, will deprive another of a statutory right under Section 5(11)(c)? This question has been succinctly answered in the case of Ramesh S. Kale v. Madhav B. Wadnere (2001) Supp. Bom.C.R. 321 by this very Court. "Merely because the person in whose name, receipts are issued happened to be one of the legal heirs of the original tenant, the right of the other heirs are not wiped off. In fact, the law in this regard is well established as already stated above, i.e. upon the death if the original tenant, tenancy rights are inherited by all the legal heirs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal No. 46 of 2000 in L.C. Suit No. 1743 of 1992

Decided On: 11.07.2006

 Zahid Ahmedali Mazgaonwalla Vs. Gulshan Pyarali Mazgaonwalla

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Citation: 2006(5) ALLMR 49

Print Page

Whether landlord is bound to give rent receipt if rent is sent to him by money order?

The learned Judge, further thought that when the landlord received the money-order in respect of rent from the complainant, it was not possible for him to comply with the requirement of the section since even though he might be prepared to give the receipt as required by that section; there was no one to receive it on behalf of the tenant. There is good ideal of force in this view of the learned; Judge, because obviously, the postman who brings the money-order is not authorised to receive the rent receipt from him on behalf of the tenant sending the money-order. What the section contemplates is that the landlord shall give receipt to the person from whom he receives the amount of rent, and obviously, such person could; not me any other than the tenant himself or his representative. This view of the learned Judge seems to be justified, both on the facts of the case as well as on the construction of Section 26(1) of the Rent Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Reference No. 19 of 1963

Decided On: 03.07.1963

 Gopal Sitaram Mahashabde Vs. The State

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.C. Shah, J.

 Citation : 1964 MhLJ1 53,

Print Page

Whether conditions printed at back of rent receipt constitute agreement between landlord and tenant?

For agreement between the parties, reliance is placed only on a condition printed at the back of the rent receipt issued by the landlords. In our view, it cannot be said on the basis of what is printed on the back side of the rent receipt that the parties had accepted it as a condition of the lease. The rent receipt is a document issued by the landlord acknowledging receipt of payment of rent by him. Conditions printed at the back of rent receipt cannot be said to be a conscious decision taken by the parties governing the lease of premises. Terms and conditions of a lease result from conscious decision of parties. Therefore, we are unable to accept that the parties have entered into an agreement about service of one months' notice in advance to vacate the premises before institution of eviction petition.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 5574 and 5575 of 2000

Decided On: 19.09.2005

Jaswant Raj Soni and Jabar Lal Vs. Prakash Mal and Kan Mal

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Arun Kumar and A.K. Mathur, JJ.

Citation:(2005) 8 SCC38,2005(7) Scale 344

Print Page

Whether rent receipts can be exhibited even though person who has issued it is not examined?

The second ground on which the learned Subordinate Judge's judgment is based is that, in his opinion the dakhilas which the defendants had produced had not been to use the words of the learned Judge himself) " satisfactorily proved." What he means by this expression, it is difficult to understand for it appears that these dakhilas were produced in the Trial Court by the defendants, that they were spoken to by the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants and that they were marked as Exhibits in the cases without any objection on the side of the plaintiffs. If the learned Subordinate Judge meant that the dakhilas were not genuine, there is no reason why he should not have said so expressly in his judgment. If, however, he referred to the fact that the dakhilas had not been properly proved, that is to say, proved in accordance with law, in my opinion, he was not right in taking that view. In the first place, the persons who produced these dakhilas stated in Court that there were the dakhilas which had been received either by them or by others, from whom they had received them, on payment of rent to the plaintiffs and it is well-known that this is one of the ways in which dakhilas can be proved in a suit. Reference may, in this connection, be made to the case of Surja Kanta Acharjee v. Baneswar Shaha (1897) 24 Cal. 251 wherein, relying-upon the cases of Raj Mahomed v. Banoo Rasmah (1869) 12 W.R. 34 and Madhub Chunder Chowdhry v. Promotho Nath Roy (1873) 20 W.R. 264, this Court held that where the genuineness of a rent receipt is sworn to by the tenant by whom the rent has been paid, that is legally sufficient to prove the receipt notwithstanding that the persons whose signature it bears has not been examined.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

Decided On: 25.03.1924

Abdul Samad and Anr. Vs.  Gunendra Krishna Roy and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Mookerjee, J.

Citation: AIR 1925 Cal 452

Print Page

When court should not permit appointment of handwriting expert for comparison of signature on rent receipt?

 I also find some substance in the argument of Mr. Sen that in
the finding recorded by the Learned Judge at the time of allowing of the
application under Section 7 (2) of the WBPT Act, 1997 is nothing but a
tenttive findings and ultimately the petitioner/defendant no.3 will get
chance to adduce evidence when the full fledged trial would take place in
Ejectment suit.
 12. Therefore, considering the submissions of Mr. Sen and also
considering the decision reported in 1987(1) CHN (Cal) (Supra) I have no
hesitation to hold that the present revisional application should not be
sustained in the eye of law and it should be dismissed.
 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present: The Hon’ble Justice Samapti Chatterjee
C.O.1333 of 2015
Subir Saha
Vs
 Sankarlal Mitra & Ors.

Judgment on : August 7, 2015.
Samapti Chatterjee, J.
Citation:AIR 2016(NOC)374 Cal

Print Page

When unstamped rent receipts are admissible in evidence?

In the case on hand, the unstamped rental receipts, 13 in

 numbers have been duly marked and admitted in evidence

 without    any   objection   being   raised   against   its

 admissibility on the reason that those bear no stamps. At

 the tenant's instance, the Rent Control Court's order of

 enhancement of rent was appealed against, but the Rent

 Control Appellate Authority failed to exercise the power

 of revision vested in it under Section 59 of the Kerala

 Stamp Act, 1959. Therefore, in view of the mandate of

 Section 35 of the said Act, the admissibility of the rental

 receipts already admitted in evidence as Ext.X1 series

 cannot be questioned before this Court, which now is in
 
 seizin of the matter, being the revisional authority. To

 conclude, the authorities below were absolutely not in

 error in dealing with the matter and the argument

 advanced against the reliability of those documents is

 untenable.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT:

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
                                   &
                THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

        WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015
                      R C Rev.No. 297 of 2014 ()
                   
       RAJESH R.KARTHA
     Vs
       K.A. ISMAIL
 Citation: AIR 2016(NOC)292 Kerala

Print Page