Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court has held that a tenant who came into possession of rented premises through a rent deed executed by a landlord cannot subsequently challenge the landlord's ownership, especially after having paid rent for decades.

Deciding a seven-decade-old landlord-tenant dispute that began in 1953, the Court observed that the defendants'(tenants) predecessors had taken the shop on rent from one Ramji Das, and continued to pay rent to him and his son even after his death. Hence, the Court ruled, the tenants were estopped from questioning the title of the landlord or his legal successor.

“The tenant having come into possession of the tenanted premises by a rent deed executed by the earlier landlord cannot turn around and challenge his ownership,” the bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice K Vinod Chandran stated, while setting aside concurrent findings of the trial court, the first appellate court, and the High Court.

Background

The litigation arose between the successors of the original landlord and tenant. The plaintiff, the daughter-in-law of late Ramji Das, claimed ownership of the disputed shop on the basis of a Will executed on May 12, 1999, and sought eviction on the ground of bona fide need to expand her family's sweets and savouries business being run in the adjoining shop.

The defendants, sons of the original tenant, disputed her title, alleging that the Will was fraudulent and that Ramji Das himself had no ownership over the premises, which they claimed belonged to his uncle, Sua Lal.

The trial court dismissed the landlord's suit, holding that she failed to establish ownership and that the Will appeared suspicious. The appellate court and the High Court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the tenancy was not validly attorned to the plaintiff after the landlord's death.

Supreme Court Reverses Findings

The Supreme Court found the lower courts' conclusions to be perverse and contrary to the material evidence. Referring to Exhibit P-18, a relinquishment deed executed by Sua Lal in 1953 in favor of Ramji Das, the Court held that ownership of Ramji Das was clearly established.

It noted that both the defendants and their father had been paying rent to Ramji Das since 1953 and continued paying rent to his son after his death. The dispute regarding the title of Ramji Das could not be accepted since the relinquishment deed and long-standing rent payments clearly proved his ownership, the Court held.

The Court also took note of a 2018 probate order validating the Will of Ramji Das, which was wrongly disregarded by the High Court. It observed that suspicion over the Will merely because the testator did not provide for his wife was “not a valid ground” to doubt its genuineness. Once the Will was probated, the plaintiff's claim derived through it “attained legal sanctity,” the Court said.

Finding that the plaintiff and her family were engaged in a sweets and savouries business in the adjacent shop and sought to expand it to the disputed premises, the Supreme Court held that the bona fide requirement was genuine.

The plaintiff's intention to participate in and expand the family business into the tenanted premises stands established, the judgment noted.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court decreed eviction of the tenants and directed recovery of rent arrears from January 2000 until possession is handed over. Considering the long duration of tenancy, the Court granted six months' time to vacate, provided the tenants file an undertaking within two weeks to pay arrears within one month and surrender possession within six months.

In the absence of such an undertaking, the plaintiff would be entitled to seek summary eviction, the Court clarified.

Case : Jyoti Sharma vs Vishnu Goyal

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1081

Click here to read the judgment

Appearances :

Mr. Puneet Jain, Senior Advocate, appeared for the plaintiff-landlord.

Mr. N.K. Mody, Senior Advocate, appeared for the defendants-tenants.