In a significant ruling on landlord-tenant disputes, the Supreme Court of India has held that a tenant, after admitting to a tenancy relationship for over half a century, cannot later turn around and challenge the original landlord’s title in an eviction suit. A bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice K. Vinod Chandran also observed that a probate order for a will, through which a successor-landlord claims title, grants the claim a “legal sanctity which could not have been brushed aside.”
The Court set aside the concurrent judgments of three lower courts and decreed an eviction suit in favor of the landlord, who sought possession based on a will and for a bona fide need to expand her family business.
Case Background
The legal dispute concerned a shop room originally rented in 1953 by Ramji Das to Kishan Lal, the father of the respondents (the tenants). After Kishan Lal’s death, his sons continued the grocery business in the shop.
The appellant, Jyoti Sharma (the plaintiff), is the daughter-in-law of the original landlord, Ramji Das. She initiated the suit for eviction claiming ownership of the shop through a will executed by Ramji Das on May 12, 1999, before his death on August 7, 1999. The suit was filed for recovery of rent arrears from January 2000 and for eviction on the ground of bona fide need, stating her intention to join her husband’s adjacent sweets and savouries business and expand it into the tenanted premises.
Arguments of the Parties
The tenants disputed the landlord’s claim on multiple grounds. They challenged the very title of the original landlord, Ramji Das, asserting the property actually belonged to his paternal uncle, Sua Lal. They further assailed the will produced by the plaintiff as fraudulent and argued that there was no attornment of tenancy in her favor after Ramji Das’s death. However, they admitted that the initial rent deed was executed by Ramji Das and that rent was paid to him and, after his death, to his son (the plaintiff’s husband).
The plaintiff contended that her husband collected rent on her behalf following the bequest. She also submitted that a registered notice informing the tenants of the will and her ownership had been sent to them.
Procedural History and Lower Court Findings
The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove ownership and the landlord-tenant relationship. It expressed suspicion over the will based on a signature comparison and noted that the tenancy had not been attorned. This decision was eventually affirmed by the first appellate court and subsequently by the High Court in a second appeal, leading the plaintiff to approach the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court, after granting leave, conducted a detailed analysis of the evidence and legal principles, overturning the findings of the lower courts.
On the Challenge to Landlord’s Title: The Court held that the tenants’ challenge to Ramji Das’s title was untenable. It pointed to a relinquishment deed (Exhibit P-18) from 1953, based on which Ramji Das had rented out the property. The judgment stated, “The dispute regarding the title of Ramji Das could not have been raised by the tenant who had come into the premises by virtue of a deed executed by Ramji Das to whom, for more than half a century, the tenants were also paying rent.”
On the Validity of the Will and Probate: The bench found the trial court’s reasons for suspecting the will to be invalid. The trial court had noted that the testator did not set aside anything for his wife, which the Supreme Court found was “not a valid ground to suspect the intentions of the testator or the probity of the bequest made.”
Critically, the Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff had obtained a probate order for the will in 2018, which she sought to produce before the High Court. The High Court had rejected this application. The Supreme Court disapproved of this, observing, “when an order of probate was produced, which is not mandatory, the claim of the plaintiff through a Will attains a legal sanctity which could not have been brushed aside by the High Court.” The bench reiterated the established principle that “in a suit for eviction, the proof of ownership of the tenanted premises is not to be strictly looked at as in a suit for declaration of title.”
On Attornment and Bona Fide Need: The Court gave weight to the evidence showing that a registered notice (Exhibit P-9) was sent to the tenants, informing them of the bequest. Regarding the bona fide need, the Court found it was clearly established, as there was no dispute about the existence of the adjacent family business or the plaintiff’s intention to expand it.
Concluding that the lower courts had ignored material evidence, the Supreme Court held their findings to be perverse. The judgment reads, “we find the concurring decisions of all the three courts to have not considered the material evidence and entered into findings in a perverse manner based on mere surmises and conjectures.”
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff-landlord. It ordered the tenants to pay rent arrears from January 2000 until handing over possession and directed their eviction.
Considering the long duration of the tenancy, the Court granted the tenants six months to vacate the premises, subject to filing an undertaking in the trial court within two weeks. The undertaking must commit to clearing all rent arrears within one month and handing over vacant possession within six months. The Court clarified that if the undertaking is not filed, the landlord would be entitled to seek summary eviction.
