Source: https://www.lawweb.in/2018/03/whether-tenant-who-disclaims-his.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:46:29+00:00

Document:
Law Web: Whether tenant who disclaims his tenancy is entitled to get benefit of provision of rent Act?
Whether tenant who disclaims his tenancy is entitled to get benefit of provision of rent Act?
"The effect of such a disclaimer, in our opinion, is that it brings to an end the relationship of landlord and tenant; the cessation being by operation of law resulting from proprio motu (a voluntary act) of the tenant. We do not see any reason to imply in favour of such a tenant the sprouting of a statutory tenancy or the operation of the restrictive provisions of the Bombay Rent Act in his favour. Similarly, statutory tenancies can also be disclaimed so as to render inapplicable the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. A tenant disclaims the title of his landlord who accepts such disclaimer and seeks eviction upon the basis thereof. The voluntary action of the tenant and its acceptance by the landlord results in a bilateral determination of the tenancy and takes the case out of the pale of S. 5(ll) of the Bombay Rent Act. Statutory protection under the Act is to a tenant who claims to be a tenant and who is ready and willing to abide by the terms of the tenancy. A tenant who disclaims his tenancy does not fulfil the aforesaid qualifications. A tenant disclaiming the title of the claimant landlord and his relationship of tenancy literally knocks out the very bottom of statutory protection. This amounts to disclaiming the benefits available under the Bombay Rent Act. We are firmly of the view that it is open to a person to bring about by his own voluntary actions a situation which results in the cessation of relationship of landlord and tenant so as to render the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act inapplicable to the facts of his case. In such cases the dispute between the claimant owner and the occupant ceases to be a dispute between a landlord and a tenant in regard to any matter covered by the Bombay Rent Act. It becomes a dispute of titles and falls outside the purview of S. 28 of the Bombay Rent Act. In our opinion, the Bombay Rent Act does postulate an exercise in futility where a plaintiff is driven to the Rent Court even though the defendants do not accept him as their landlord."
1. This is a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners impugning the judgment of the Appeal Bench of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, dated 17th September, 1985 by which the suit of the petitioners was dismissed.
The suit premises consist of one room in Flat No. 21, 3rd floor of House No. 16, Cross Building at Dock Yard Road, Bombay-10. Flat No. 21 consists of three rooms and a passage. One Francies Pereira was the original tenant of the whole flat and was in occupation of the entire premises. Francis Pereira had a son named Andrew and a daughter named Mary who was married to one Boracho. During his lifetime Francis transferred the tenancy of the entire flat to his son Andrew. He also permitted his daughter Mary to occupy the middle room of the flat along with the members of her family. Francis died in the year 1955. Andrew filed eviction Suit No. 1251/E/61 in the year 1961 against Mary to evict her from the middle room occupied by her and her family. This suit was compromised and a decree was passed in terms of the consent terms. By this compromise, Mary, defendant No. 1, and her husband, defendant No. 2, were accepted as sub-tenants of the room occupied by them. Andrew died in 1971. The present petitioners terminated the tenancy of Mary and her husband by notice dated 10th March, 1979 and filed R.A.E. Suit No. 5204 of 1979 for evicting Mary and her husband from the premises occupied by them. In addition to Mary and her husband, Edward and June were made formal parties presumably as they were not available at the time of filing of the suit for joining in the suit as plaintiffs. The suit for eviction was filed on the ground that the premises were reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for occupation by themselves or by any person for whose benefit the premises were held, within the meaning of S. 13(l)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1948. The suit, as filed initially, was only on the ground falling within the meaning of S. 13(l)(g). The defendants to the suit resisted the suit by denying that the premises were reasonably or bona fide required by the landlords. Later on, during the pendency of the suit, the written statement was amended by incorporating paragraph 6-A by which it was pleaded that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were joint tenants along with the plaintiffs as they were the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased tenant (Francis) and residing with him at the time of his death. On this ground the defendants claimed joint tenancy and disputed the right of the plaintiffs as landlords to evict them from the premises. It is interesting to note that despite a specific plea of joint tenancy raised by the defendants by which the title of the landlords was disputed, there was no amendment made in the plaint, nor was this fact made a ground for seeking eviction of the defendants.
(i) The learned Judge has failed to consider the consequences of having failed to prove joint tenancy and cannot permit respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to proceed thereafter on the grounds of sub-tenancy.
(j) The learned Judge has failed to consider the principles of law, namely, that once the occupants fail to prove that he is a joint tenant it amounts to denying the title of the appellants which means that respondents 1 and 2 have lost the protection of the Rent Act.
(k) The learned Judge ought to have held that as the respondents failed to prove that he is a joint tenant they have lost the protection of the Rent Act and are not entitled to agitate any of the grounds of the Rent Act namely bona fide requirement and hardship.
4. Though the Appeal Court raised two points for recording its findings, there was no point framed on the question as to whether disputing the title of the plaintiffs-landlords, by claiming joint tenancy, would itself furnish a ground for eviction of the defendants irrespective of any other ground made out in the plaint.
5. Both the trial Court and the Appeal Court considered the plea of the defendants that they were joint tenants. After a careful appreciation of the evidence on record, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the defendants had failed, to make out or prove their plea in this behalf and held them to be the tenants. Both the Courts below have also concurrently made a finding that though the reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiffs had been proved, on a consideration of the comparative hardship, they were not inclined to pass an order of eviction as passing the decree of eviction against the defendants would cause greater hardship to them than would be caused to the plaintiffs by refusal to do so.
6. The unsuccessful plaintiffs came to this Court by way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the judgments and orders of the Courts below. It may be mentioned here that Mary, who was the first respondent in this Court, died some time in the year 1987.
7. Mr. Rege, learned counsel for the petitioners, canvassed two contentions in support of his case. He firstly contended that both the Courts below were wrong in not making a decree of eviction against the tenants despite the fact that the tenants had by their plea of their joint tenancy disputed the landlords' character and title as landlords. In his submission, the moment the tenant sets up a defence which amounts to disputing the tide of the landlord, a decree of eviction must follow irrespective of the fact that such plea of the tenant is ultimately rejected by the Court. He, therefore, contends that regardless of other contentions raised in the plaint, both the Courts below ought to have made a decree of eviction against the tenants for the simple reason that the tenants had, by their amendment incorporated in paragraph 6-A, disputed the title and character of the petitioners as landlords. The second contention advanced by him was that the finding of both the Courts below on the issue of comparative hardship was perverse. He, therefore, submitted that the judgments of the Courts below should be quashed and a decree of ejectment of the tenants should be passed in favour of the petitioners landlords.
8. 1 shall first consider and dispose of the second contention of Mr. Rege. Both the Courts below have, upon a careful appreciation of the evidence on record, recorded a concurrent finding of fact, namely, that there would be greater hardship caused to the tenants by a decree of eviction than would be caused to the plaintiffs by refusal to do so. Though Mr. Rege claimed that the finding of both the Courts below on this issue was perverse, I am not satisfied on this count. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 as a writ Court, I am loath to interfere with a concurrent finding of fact. As a matter of fact, at Mr. Rege's invitation, 1 have scrutinised the evidence on record as annexed to the petition and I am inclined to agree with the view taken concurrently by the Courts below. In my view, both the Courts below have, on the evidence on record, rightly held against the plaintiffs on the issue of comparative hardship.
9. I shall now deal with the first contention of Mr. Rege. He pointed out the provisions of Section 111(g)(2)_of the Transfer of Property Act and contended that a lease of immovable property determines in case the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself. Mr. Rege was, however, quick to contend that his suit was not based on such disclaimer as a cause of action. He conceded that if at all a disclaimer, by way of the tenant disputing the title of the landlord and claiming title in himself, had arisen before the suit was filed, the Small Causes Court under the Rent Act would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He contends that when the suit was filed, the suit was filed on the footing that the plaintiffs were the landlords and the defendants 1 and 2 were the tenants and, therefore, Rent Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit was filed on the ground falling within Section 13(l)(g) of the Rent Act. But, contends Mr. Rege, the moment the defendants set up the defence of joint tenancy, they must be deemed to have renounced .their character as tenants and even though the Small Causes Court ultimately came to a finding that there was no substance in this plea, by the mere fact of having raised this pica, the tenants must be deemed to have lost protection under the Bombay Rent Act and the Small Causes Court ought to have passed a decree of eviction on this very ground alone. He, therefore, contends that though this plea of joint tenancy was specifically noticed by both the Courts below, the Courts have grievously erred in law by not passing the only logical order which ought to be the sequel to such a plea, namely, an order for eviction.
10. Mr. Rege strongly relied on the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act. He contends that under Section 116 no tenant of immovable property shall be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property. He contends that the moment the tenants in the instant case set up a plea of joint tenancy, they were, in effect, disputing the title of the landlords and, therefore, Section 116 of the Evidence Act furnishes to the Court a clear ground for holding that the tenants ceased to enjoy the protection of the Rent Act and for evicting them forthwith without any further ado. In my judgment, this contention cannot be accepted for more than one reasons. In the first place, no such ground was taken in the pleadings by the plaintiffs. The suit did not seek eviction of the defendants on the ground that there was disclaimer or that the tenants had disputed the title of the plaintiffs. It is also pertinent to note that the so called disclaimer or dispute of title of the landlord did not arise before the suit was filed nor was it made a ground for eviction. On the other hand, the contractual tenancy of the defendants was terminated by the plaintiffs' notice dated 10th March, 1979. After having done so, the plaintiffs filed the present suit and sought relief from the Small Causes Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Rent Act, to grant relief in the matter of eviction where there is a relationship of landlord and tenant as defined under the Act. Even after the defendants amended their written statement and took up the plea of joint tenancy, thus disputing the title of the plaintiffs as landlords, the petitioners did not amend the plaint and raise this fact as a ground for eviction. Even when the matter was carried in appeal, no amendment of the plaint was sought to incorporate such a ground for eviction. The only time we see this contention surfacing is in the appeal memo vide paragraphs (i), (j) and (k). The explanation of the petitioners for not raising an additional ground for eviction on the basis of the tenants disputing the landlord's title is that if they had done so, the Small Causes Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit and they might have been driven to the Civil Court for relief. This is hardly an explanation which can be accepted. By not doing what they ought to have done, the plaintiffs cannot get the benefit of what they had not pleaded.
11. For the petitioners reliance has been placed on the judgments in Devidas Dwarkadas v. Shamal Gopal, 22 Bom LR 149 : AIR 1920 Bom 312; Ekoba Govindshet Vani v. Dayaram Narayan 752 Bom LR 82 : AIR 1920 Bom 360; Krishnarao Raghunath Yardi v.Ghaman Ghama Valad Chima, 36 Bom L R 1074: MANU/MH/0200/1934 : AIR 1935 Bom 144; Kumar Krishna Prosad Lal Singha Deo v. The Baraboni Coal Concern, Limited MANU/PR/0072/1937. and Atyam Veeraju v. Pechetti Venkanna, MANU/SC/0349/1965 : 1SCR831 . After having carefully considered these judgments, I am of the view, that none of these judgments lays down the proposition of law as canvassed for the petitioners. These judgments merely lay down and emphasise that under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his landlord's title, however defective it may be, so long as he has not openly restored possession by surrender to his landlord. These were all cases where the tenant of immovable .property was disputing the title of the landlord and trying to set up a title in himself or a third party. The Privy Council, our High Court and the Supreme Court uniformly relied on Section 116 of the Evidence Act and took the view that any such plea on the part of the tenant had to be shut out. It is difficult to accept the contention of Mr. Rege that Section 116 of the Evidence Act furnishes a ground for eviction. In my judgment, this section merely enumerates the principle of estoppel which is merely an extension of the principle that no person is allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. The principle laid down in this section is that having becoming a tenant and holding on to the property on the basis of the landlord's title, the tenant is not entitled to repudiate or dispute the title of the landlord. This does not mean that if he does so by way of a defence in a suit falling within the purview of the Rent Act, there should be a decree forthwith for eviction. This rule of estoppel only means that a defence of such nature ought to be shut out and rejected by the Court. In our case, after having noticed the defence of this type, both the Courts below have, on the peculiar facts of the case, rejected the defence and recorded a finding that the defendants were not joint tenants. It is on this footing that the Small Causes Court continued to have and exercised jurisdiction under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.
12. The petitioners then relied upon the case of Nanduben Dayalji v. Bhatia Ranchhoddas Lalji, reported in AIR 1977 Guj 173. Relying on this judgment, it is submitted that the very relationship between the parties which qualifies the tenant for protection under the Rent Act is one of landlord and the tenant. Any right which a tenant might possess under the Rent Act must necessarily flow from the existence and basic acceptance of the relationship between the parties. Acceptance of this relationship is implicit between a landlord and a tenant, even though the terms of the tenancy may not have expressly stated so. It was held that such a condition, written or unwritten, can never be inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Rent Act because it is tenant's acceptance of this relationship which brings the provisions of the Rent Act into picture and qualifies him for the protection granted under the said Act to the exclusion of the provisions of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act under which he would be liable for eviction on account of such a reason. This condition, whether express or implied, is protected by Section 116 of the Evidence Act which stops a lessee from denying his lessor's title. Relying on this judgment, it was submitted that as soon as a tenant denies the title of his landlord, who demised the premises to him and with whom he has a privity of contract, and sets it up in himself or in someone else, it must be unhesitatingly said that he has not observed and performed the most basic and fundamental condition of the tenancy which means that he is liable to eviction even under the Rent Act. A reference to this judgment makes it immediately obvious that in this case the landlord had sought eviction of his tenants on two grounds, one of them expressly being that the tenants had denied the landlord's title. In this judgment, the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court was examining the contention raised by the tenants that once the tenant denies his landlord's title, the only remedy which the landlord had was to file a suit for title and that he could not have any recourse to the Rent Act. This argument was repelled by the High Court by pointing out that the jurisdiction of the Court had to be determined on the basis of the relationship that existed between the parties and if the landlord was able to prove that he was a landlord and that there existed between the parties the relationship of landlord and tenant, he was entitled to maintain a suit under the provisions of the Rent Act to recover possession of the premises from his tenant. It was pointed out that if there was a disclaimer of title and because of such disclaimer no resort could be had to the Court under the Rent Act, then the veil of protection which the Bombay Rent Act throws round the 1 tenant will help him to over reach his landlord. It would mean that it is open to a tenant to go on denying his landlord's title with impunity and to continue in possession of the demised premises until his landlord establishes his title. The High Court then held that any protection that the tenant can claim under the Bombay Rent Act flows from the basic fact that he accepts the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the moment he disputes that relationship, he must be held to have committed breach of the most essential condition of tenancy which qualifies him for protection under sub-section 12(1). In my view, this decision is no authority for the proposition being canvassed for the petitioners. Firstly, in this case the suit itself has been filed on the basis of a disclaimer and all that this decision says is that a tenant who brings the contractual tenancy into an end by reason of disclaimer, could not, by his own act, deny jurisdiction to the Rent Court if the landlord files a suit for eviction under the provisions of the Rent Act.
"Denial in the suit will not work a forfeiture of which advantage can be taken in that suit, because the forfeiture must have accrued before the suit was instituted."
This judgment also militates against the proposition strenuously contended by Mr. Rege.
"A conspectus of legal provisions gives rise to the legitimate inference that there must be in point of fact a contractual tenancy in existence before any statutory tenancy can be posited in favour of a tenant. It is also clear that a tenant, whose contractual tenancy is determined, is a tenant within the inclusive definition of the word 'tenant' m S. 5(11) of the Bombay Rent Act. Ordinarily when a landlord determines a contractual tenancy and claims eviction against the tenant whose tenancy is determined, his claim is triable exclusively by the Court contemplated under S. 28 of the Act. This is so because, notwithstanding the determination of contractual tenancy by the landlord, the tenant is entitled to retain possession till the landlord succeeds in getting a decree for eviction against him on grounds set out in the Bombay Rent Act. This is a statutory protection afforded to a tenant by the Bombay Rent Act, under which a unilateral determination by the landlord of contractual tenancy does not become effective proprio vigore. Such determination yields to statutory tenancy which is protected by the Bombay Rent Act. But in cases where there is surrender of tenancy by the tenant or there is disclaimer, the situation is qualitatively different and is governed by different legal principles."
"It is thus very clear, upon the observations of the Supreme Court, that in a situation where a landlord seeks recovery of possession of any premises, the relationship of landlord and tenant is a sine qua non for the attract ability of the provisions of S. 28 of the Act. If such a condition is not fulfilled, Section 28 is out of the way and it is open to the owner of the property to recover possession of the premises dehors the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act."
Analysing the facts of the case before it, the Division Bench says that as a result of the disclaimer, which disclaimer was found to be much prior to the suit, the tenancy of Defendants 3 and 4 had come to an end and, therefore, at the time of the suit there did not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 and hence the Defendants were not entitled to invoke the protection under the Bombay Rent Act on the basis that they were statutory tenants. Even in this case the act of disclaimer had occurred before the suit and/or a ground on which the suit was founded. In my view, the observations in Ratanlal's case (supra) make it clear that unless disclaimer or disputing the landlord's title is made a ground for eviction, it would not be sufficient to claim an order of eviction merely on the ground that the tenant has, in the suit for eviction, raised a frivolous plea disputing the landlord's title. In my judgment, the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Maharaja of Jeypore case (supra) is very much applicable to the case of the Petitioners. 1 am bound by the decision of the Division Bench in Ratanlal's case (supra) and I am unable to accept the extreme contention of Mr. Rege that the moment the Defendants set up the defence of joint tenancy, they must be deemed to have lost the protection of the Rent Act and that they were liable to be evicted forthwith without anything further.
15. In the result, I see no merit in the petition. The petition fails and the rule is discharged.
16. However, there would be no order as to costs.

References: Art. 227
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.