In one it's current judgement, the Supreme Court while carving out an exception to 'Once a Tenant, always a Tenant' principle and has observed that, while making though, in a landlord-tenant suit, the landlord isn't required to prove his title in the subject property as in a title-suit, when his/her derivative title is challenged, the same has to be established in some form.

Case Background

The Trial Court had decreed the case filed by the plaintiffs who claimed to have had derived their right, title and interest to the subject premises from the partnership firm after its dissolution. The High Court reversed the judgement of the Trial Court.

Then on an appeal has been filed before the Top Court.

After accessing the appeal, the Apex Court noticed that that sufficient material wasn't there before the Trial Court or the High Court to establish the original plaintiffs' claim of ownership of the subject premises on the basis of a family arrangement after the dissolution of the firm.

It remarked:

"There is no material before us from which we could conclude that the original plaintiffs' title to the subject-premises came from residue assets of the dissolved firm. In a landlord-tenant suit, the landlord is not required to prove his title in the subject property as in a title-suit. But when the landlord's derivative title is challenged, the same has to be established in some form. On this point, the original plaintiffs have failed before the first two Courts."

The Court stated that though the principle of estoppel bars a tenant from questioning the title landlords [Section 116 of the Evidence Act], the Court said that in this case, the said principle can't be made applicable in the present case straightaway as the main defence set up by the tenant is that he had acknowledged the said partnership firm as the landlord but questioned the locus standi of the plaintiffs, who operated under the same trade name.

It thus concluded:

"In the absence of attornment or public notice of dissolution, the defendant had no way of having knowledge of change of landlord of the subject-premises from partnership firm to a co-ownership concern. The co-ownership firm admittedly was not the defendant's landlord at the time of commencement of the lease. Thus, the identity of the landlord stood altered, though the seventeen individuals continued to operate under the same trade name."

The judgement has been delivered by  Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose on 18-12-2019:

Read Judgement Here:

 

Share this Document :

Picture Source :