Summary
The Supreme Court restored the summary eviction decree after finding no arguable substantial defence concerning the landlord’s title, attornment or monthly rent. Statutory vesting and the tenant’s correspondence and pleadings established the successor landlord’s position. Rent was Rs.40,000, exceeding the applicable tenancy-statute ceiling. Six months to vacate was granted subject to timely deposits and an undertaking, with earlier execution available on default.
Issues
- Whether the tenant raised an arguable title or attornment defence requiring trial.
- Whether the proved monthly rent brought the premises within the West Bengal tenancy statute.
- What conditions governed time to vacate.
Held
- A landlord’s ownership in an eviction action need not be proved to the same standard as in a title suit. A tenant may question an assignee’s derivative title before attornment, but payment or other acceptance establishing attornment precludes that challenge; attornment continues the existing tenancy. (¶¶ 45, 46, 47, 48)
- The statutory vesting notification established the appellant’s ownership for the eviction action. The tenant’s correspondence offering rent, admissions and demand for acceptance of rent in its own plaint, together with its failure to object to the quit notice at the first opportunity, established attornment and defeated the asserted title ambiguity. (¶¶ 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65)
- Longstanding payments and rent receipts proved monthly rent of Rs.40,000. The proposed split into Rs.1,600 rent and Rs.38,400 maintenance was not established. As the proved rent exceeded the applicable Rs.10,000 ceiling, the Transfer of Property Act summary eviction action was maintainable. (¶¶ 67, 68, 69, 70, 71)
- The three asserted defences lacked an arguable factual or legal foundation requiring trial. The Single Judge rightly refused leave to defend, and the Division Bench’s unconditional leave was set aside. (¶¶ 42, 43, 72, 73)
- Six months to vacate depended on depositing all rent arrears and six months’ rent as occupation damages within one month, and filing an undertaking within two weeks. Failure to provide the undertaking and deposits entitled the landlord to execution after one month. The landlord could withdraw the sums deposited in the High Court. (¶¶ 74, 75)
- The specified related injunction suit, title suit and rent writ petition, if still pending, stood disposed of as a consequence of the judgment. (¶ 76)
Result
Appeal allowed; Single Judge’s summary eviction decree restored. Conditional six-month period to vacate granted, subject to deposits and undertaking, with execution on stated default; specified related pending cases disposed of.