Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2192 (ALL)

Laxmi Narayal Pal v. Bharat Kumar Dube

2010-07-26

DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Devendra Pratap Singh,J. -Heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition by the tenant is directed against a revisional order dated 31.1.2009 by which the suit of the respondent-landlord has been decreed for eviction and arrears of rent etc. 2. The respondent-landlord instituted a SCC suit no. 5 of 2000 against the petitioner-tenant inter-alia with the allegation that the petitioner was a tenant of the disputed premises at Rs.25/- per month which was the joint property of his father Upendra Narain and his two brothers Rajendra Narain and Ram Narain. A partition took place between the brothers vide a decree of partition passed in suit no. 17 of 1987 by an order dated 22.7.1987 in pursuance of which the disputed accommodation came to the exclusive share of Upendra Narain, father of the present landlord. Thereafter, a family settlement took place in his father's family and where the disputed accommodation fell into the exclusive share of the respondent-landlord but despite notices by the landlord and intimation by his brothers and sisters that he had become entitled to receive the rent, the rent was neither paid nor premises vacated, forcing him to file the aforesaid suit on the ground of arrears since April, 1991. 3. The suit was contested by the petitioner-tenant inter-alia stating that the rent was Rs.6/- per month and the tenancy was only with Ram Narain and for the first time he came to know about the partition decree in P.A. Case no. 62 of 1992 and it is contended that he was never a tenant of Upendra Narain and the family settlement between the landlord and his brother and sister was fraudulent and it was oral and was never acted upon and until and unless the landlord gets his title declared from a competent court, he would not be entitled for rent. However, he allegedly deposited the rent in proceedings under section 30 and also paid at the first hearing and claimed the benefit of section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (here-in-after referred to as the Act). 4. The trial court framed as many as 6 issues and held that there was landlord-tenant relationship between the parties at least from April, 1991. On the question of rate of rent, it held that it was Rs.6/- per month. 4. The trial court framed as many as 6 issues and held that there was landlord-tenant relationship between the parties at least from April, 1991. On the question of rate of rent, it held that it was Rs.6/- per month. With regard to validity of the notice and deposit of rent, it held that the notice was valid and the tenant was a defaulter. However, it held that since the tenant had deposited the rent at the first hearing, it granted protection of section 20 (4) of the Act and dismissed the suit. 5. Aggrieved, the respondent-landlord preferred a revision and the revisional court after considering several decisions of the Apex Court and this Court has held that the deposit was conditional and the petitioner had challenged the title of the landlord, therefore he was not entitled to protection of section 20 (4) of the Act. 6. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that every tenant has a right to question the derivative title of his landlord and this would not amount to conditional deposit or denial of title and therefore the revisional court erred in law in decreeing the suit. In support of his contention, he has relied upon he decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Sheela Vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash and a decision of this court rendered in the case of Chhotey Lal Shukla Vs. IXth Additional District Judge, Kanpur. 7. It is apparent from the record that the tenant had taken up a stand questing the title of his landlord and asking him to get it declared from a competent court. It is also apparent that the other family members had also intimated to the tenant that the disputed accommodation had fell within his exclusive share in a family partition. The issue then is whether it would amount to questioning the title of the landlord. Section 20 (2) (f) of the Act explicitly says that where a tenant denies the title of the landlord, he would be liable for eviction and benefit of sub section (4) would only accrue to a tenant who has defaulted in payment of rent. The revisional court has relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Bhure Lal Vs. Shiv Murti Gupa and a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Kundan Lal Vs. The revisional court has relied upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Bhure Lal Vs. Shiv Murti Gupa and a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Kundan Lal Vs. Ixth Additional District Judge and others and held that in the present case the tenant has denied the title of the landlord and therefore was not entitled to the protection of sub clause (4) of section 20. 8. In the case of Sheela (Supra), the Apex Court was considering the provisions of M.P. Rent Control where such a provision as available under the Act, does not exist and therefore the ratio would not apply. No doubt, a tenant can question the derivative title as held in Chhotely Lal's case (Supra) but, it should be bonafide. In the present case, despite the fact that other family members had also intimated to the tenant that in a family partition the premises in dispute fell into exclusive share of the land, yet the tenant denied his right and title which cannot be termed as bonafide. 9. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. 10. After the order had been dictated but before it could be signed learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions of his client, has given an undertaking to vacate the disputed premises within a reasonable time granted by this court and has also submitted an affidavit. Accordingly, the petitioner shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the disputed premises to the respondent landlord on or before 25.10.2010 without creating any third party rights. He will also deposit the entire rent uptill that date with the trial court within a period of four weeks from today failing which he would be evicted forthwith. The amount already deposited would be adjusted.