Summary
Balraj was a tenant of a small shop in Hyderabad under its owner, Phool Kumari. In 1985 she sold the shop by registered deed to the respondent, then a minor represented by his father. Balraj's heirs stopped paying rent and claimed that Balraj had bought the shop himself with money borrowed from the respondent's father, the deed being only security. The Rent Controller, affirmed on appeal and revision, ordered eviction under the Andhra Pradesh Rent Control Act for default, mala fide denial of title and the landlord's bona fide business need. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The concurrent findings were not perverse, because a sale of immovable property worth Rs. 100 or more requires a registered instrument and the tenants produced no document. On transfer, the purchaser stepped into the landlord's shoes under Section 109 TPA. Two months were allowed to vacate on undertakings.
Issues
- Whether the tenants' denial of the purchaser-landlord's title, based only on oral assertion of an earlier purchase, was bona fide
- Whether a relationship of landlord and tenant existed after the original landlord sold the leased shop
- Whether concurrent findings of mala fide denial, bona fide requirement and applicability of the Act called for interference under Article 136
Provisions considered
- Sections 9 and 54, Transfer of Property Act, 1882A sale of immovable property worth Rs. 100 or more can be made only by registered instrument, so the claimed oral purchase by the tenant could not outweigh the registered sale deed. (¶¶ 18, 19, 22)
- Section 17(1)(b), Registration Act, 1908Compulsory registration of instruments affecting title to immovable property lets parties rely on the register, and the genuineness of a denial of title cannot rest on oral assertions against a registered deed. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- Section 101, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The tenants bore the burden of proving their asserted purchase and failed to produce any document at any stage. (¶ 26)
- Section 109, Transfer of Property Act, 1882On the landlord's sale, the transferee acquires all the landlord's rights without the need for attornment, establishing a relationship of landlord and tenant with the respondent. (¶ 27)
- Sections 2, 10(2)(vi), 10(3)(a) and 32(b), Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960Eviction was upheld for mala fide denial of title and bona fide need for own business. The plea that the shop was rebuilt, taking it outside the Act, failed for want of proof, and a small shop falls within the inclusive definition of 'building'. (¶¶ 2, 23, 24, 28)
Held
- Under Article 136, concurrent findings of fact are not re-appreciated unless they are perverse, that is, based on no evidence, against the weight of evidence, ignoring material evidence or resting on irrelevant matter. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
- Against the registered sale deed in the respondent's favour, the tenants produced not even a scrap of paper supporting their alleged purchase, and one of them admitted there was no registered deed in Balraj's favour. Their denial of title was therefore mala fide. The Appellate Authority could also note that they had pleaded adverse possession in their own suit, a plea inconsistent with a claim of title. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26)
- The plea that the shop had been dismantled and rebuilt, attracting Section 32(b), was unproved: there was no evidence of demolition, of permission for it, or of the 75% new construction required by Explanation 1. A small shop is a 'building' under the Act's inclusive definition. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- The respondent's evidence that he was unemployed and needed the shop for his own business was not shaken in cross-examination, and no other vacant premises of his were shown. The concurrent finding of bona fide requirement was not perverse. (¶ 28)
Result
Appeal dismissed. The appellants were allowed two months to vacate on filing undertakings within two weeks to hand over possession and pay Rs. 3,000 a month meanwhile.