Jaswant Singh Vs. Bhagwan Singh
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 8859-8860 of 1994
Petitioner: Jaswant Singh
Respondent: Bhagwan Singh
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 8859-8860 of 1994
Judges: B.N. KIRPAL & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 03, 2000
Head Note:
TENANCY LAW
Tenant – Eviction – Appellant claiming to have purchased the property in question from erstwhile owner – High Court not accepting validity of sale – Appellant pleading that prior to the alleged sale he was a tenant in the property and that he could not be evicted except under the provisions of the Rent Control Act – Appellant relying on his statement made before trial court to the effect that the erstwhile owner was collecting rents. Held, that alone would not go to prove that the appellant was in possession of the premises. In the absence of evidence it is not possible to hold that appellant was tenant. Appeal accordingly dismissed.
(Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Against the decision of the Bombay High Court holding that the appellant herein had no right to remain in possession of the property in question this Court on 1st December, 1994 granted leave limited to the question whether the appellant was a tenant of the premises and whether, therefore, the recovery of posses-sion of the premises from him could be decreed.
2. The case of the appellant which was put forth was that he had been a tenant of Jadavbai, the erstwhile owner of the property in question, and he had purchased the property from her. It appears that the High Court did not accept the validity of the sale as in its opinion there was a compromise which had been arrived at between Jadavbai and the respondents, as a result of which Jadav-bai had only a life estate in this property and she could, there-fore not have sold the house to the appellant.
3. Presumably basing his case on the plea that prior to the purchase he was a tenant in the house in question and, therefore, he could not be evicted except under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, this limited leave was granted.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to bring to our attention any evidence which can substantiate his claim that he was a tenant under Jadavbai. He has drawn our attention to an observation made in the judgment of the lower appellate court to the effect that Jadavbai was collecting rents. This may be so, but this by itself does not prove that the rent was being collected by her from the appellant, Jaswant Singh or that Jasw-ant Singh was in possession of the premises before he purchased the said house. In absence of any evidence it must follow that the appellant had not been able to prove that he was tenant of the premises in question prior to the sale of the house to him, which sale has been set aside.
5. For the aforesaid reasons these appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
1. Against the decision of the Bombay High Court holding that the appellant herein had no right to remain in possession of the property in question this Court on 1st December, 1994 granted leave limited to the question whether the appellant was a tenant of the premises and whether, therefore, the recovery of posses-sion of the premises from him could be decreed.
2. The case of the appellant which was put forth was that he had been a tenant of Jadavbai, the erstwhile owner of the property in question, and he had purchased the property from her. It appears that the High Court did not accept the validity of the sale as in its opinion there was a compromise which had been arrived at between Jadavbai and the respondents, as a result of which Jadav-bai had only a life estate in this property and she could, there-fore not have sold the house to the appellant.
3. Presumably basing his case on the plea that prior to the purchase he was a tenant in the house in question and, therefore, he could not be evicted except under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, this limited leave was granted.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to bring to our attention any evidence which can substantiate his claim that he was a tenant under Jadavbai. He has drawn our attention to an observation made in the judgment of the lower appellate court to the effect that Jadavbai was collecting rents. This may be so, but this by itself does not prove that the rent was being collected by her from the appellant, Jaswant Singh or that Jasw-ant Singh was in possession of the premises before he purchased the said house. In absence of any evidence it must follow that the appellant had not been able to prove that he was tenant of the premises in question prior to the sale of the house to him, which sale has been set aside.
5. For the aforesaid reasons these appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
