Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The learned Advocate for the appellant next contends that the learned Trial Judge erred in law in passing a decree for eviction without arriving at any findings as to whether the appellant was a defaulter in payment of rent as alleged. According to him, the learned Trial Judge solely relied upon the evidence adduced at the time of disposal of the application under Section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and such course is not permissible under law.

11. It is lastly contended that the present appellant cannot be said to be a second defaulter, inasmuch as, the previous default was committed in a suit filed by Mrs. Kanwal Madan but the present respondent No. 1 could not prove herself to be the successor-in-interest of Mrs. Kanwal Madan. In other words, he submits that Shri Ashok Chandra Lahiri did not purchase the property from Mrs. Kanwal Madan but only got an agreement for sale and therefore, the previous tenancy did not devolve upon him by virtue of a mere agreement for sale. According to him, the appellant having paid rent direct to Ashok Chandra Lahiri of its own under the wrong impression that he purchased the suit property from Mrs. Madan, it should be presumed that a new tenancy had been created between the appellant and Shri Ashok Chandra Lahiri and accordingly, the present tenancy cannot be the continuation of the earlier tenancy under Mrs. Madan. The learned Advocate for the appellant, thus, prays for dismissal of the suit.

19. Therefore, the first question is whether the tenancy created by Mrs. Madan has devolved upon Ashok Chandra Lahiri and after his death, upon the plaintiff No. 1 alone. It is now a settled law that for the purpose of inducting a tenant in a property, it is not necessary that the inductor must be an owner. If a tenant is inducted not by the owner but by a different person, the tenant is estopped from disputing the title of his inductor at the time of creation of tenancy. Therefore, the appellant having been originally inducted by Mrs. Madan is estopped from disputing the title of Mrs. Madan at the time of induction. The law is equally settled that a tenant can, however, dispute the derivative title of a person who claims to have acquired title from the inducting landlord. To this principle, however, there is one exception. The exception is that if the tenant himself pays rent to the derivative title-holder, he cannot dispute the title of such derivative title-holder by reason of the provisions contained in Section 116 of the Evidence Act. Of course, if through mistake he made payment, he is not so estopped. It is not the case of the appellant that through mistake, it had paid rent to Ashok Chandra Lahiri or that it tried to rectify such mistake by again tendering the rent to Mrs. Madan. But at the same time we must bear in mind that if a tenant without request from the inducting landlord pays rent of its own to another persons on the assumption that the latter has become owner by virtue of the act of the parties or by operation of law but, in fact, if the latter has not acquired such ownership, the original tenancy ceases to continue and it should be presumed that a fresh tenancy has been created between the tenant and the person to whom he has subsequently paid rent. However, if the subsequent landlord acquired title from the inducting landlord by virtue inter vivos transaction, testamentary or intestate succession or by operation of law, the original tenancy would continue. In the case before us, it is nobody's case that Mrs. Madan requested the tenant to pay rent to Ashok Chandra Lahiri. Therefore, this is not a case of attornment of tenancy on the request of inducting landlord nor is it a case of acquisition of the title from the inducting landlord as no title deed has been executed in favour of Ashok Chandra Lahiri or his heirs. Thus, by conduct of the parties, a new tenancy had been created between Ashok Chandra Lahiri and the appellant and the said tenancy is not the continuation of the tenancy created by Mrs. Madan,

21. The learned Trial Judge has in this case refused benefit to the appellant on the ground that earlier it obtained benefit from Mrs. Madan. We have already pointed out that the present tenancy is neither the continuation of the previous one by virtue of attornment nor has the said tenancy devolved upon Ashok Chandra Lahiri by dint of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, we are unable to approve the aforesaid finding of learned Trial Judge.

22. Next question is whether the notice given by the plaintiff No. 1 alone claiming to be the sole landlord is valid in terms of Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. We have already indicated that the present tenancy was created by mutual payment and acceptance of rent between the appellant and Ashok Chandra Lahiri. There is no dispute that Ashok Chandra Lahiri did not acquire title to the property but we have already held that for the purpose creation of a tenancy the landlord is not required to be the owner. It is also not in dispute that Ashok Chandra Lahiri died intestate leaving his widow, the plaintiff No. 1 and his mother Smt. Urmila Lahiri. Plaintiffs have made out a specific statement that the mother of Ashok Chandra Lahiri surrendered her interest in the property in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 and thus, the plaintiff No, 1 alone became the absolute landlord of the appellant. We find from the record that no such deed has been produced demonstrating the surrender of such interest in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 and the learned Trial Judge has also come to the conclusion that the right, title and interest of Ashok Chandra Lahiri devolved not only upon the plaintiff No. 1 but also upon his mother. Therefore, on the death of Ashok Chandra Lahiri not only the plaintiff No. 1 but also her mother-in-law became the joint landlords of the appellant. According to Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, a notice must be given by the "landlord" to the "tenant". According to various decisions given by the Supreme Court a co-owner of the property can also be a landlord and can serve eviction notice accordingly. We have already pointed out that Ashok Chandra Lahiri never became owner of the flat nor have his heirs become owner. Therefore, by taking aid of the definition of landlord mentioned in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, it cannot be said that plaintiff No. 1 alone was the landlord of the property after the death of Ashoke Chandra Lahiri. If one of the landlords asserts himself to be the sole landlord by disputing the title of other landlord, whereas at the time of hearing of the suit it is established that both are the landlords of the defendant, a notice given by one of them disputing the title of the other cannot be said to be a valid notice because the person who has given notice is claiming to be a "landlord" by asserting a different tenancy than the one proved in the suit.