Tenant Can't Deny Landlord's Title During Tenancy Even On Allegations Of Forgery: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that a tenant cannot deny the title of a landlord during the tenancy, even where allegations of forgery are raised.
“A tenant, once inducted into possession, is precluded from denying the landlord's title during the continuance of tenancy. Even where allegations of forgery are raised, the absence of credible evidence or challenge from other legal heirs negates the existence of a triable issue,” a division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Shail Jain said.
The Court observed that the principle discussed rests on both statutory authority and equitable considerations to ensure that tenants do not misuse tenancy to prolong occupation and frustrate lawful eviction.
The Bench was dealing with an appeal filed by a tenant challenging a commercial court decision in a civil suit initiated by the landlord. The tenant was inducted by the landlord's mother in a shop for commercial purposes.
After the mother's demise, the landlord claimed ownership of the shop by virtue of a Will. The tenant contended that rent was duly paid up to June, 2011, but thereafter, the landlord's mother declined to accept the rent. He claimed that he had tendered arrears of about Rs. 20,000 till August 2013 through a cheque, which was returned un-encashed.
On the other hand, the landlord asserted default in payment of rent since 2011, and further alleged unauthorized occupation of the shop.
Vide the impugned judgment, theDistrict Judge (Commercial Court), allowed the landlord's application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC and partly decreed the suit. It had directed the tenant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the landlord.
Rejecting the appeal, the Court rejected the tenant's contention that the landlord's ownership was under a cloud due to a disputed or allegedly forged Will. It added that it is a settled principle that a tenant, while continuing in possession, cannot challenge the title of the landlord.
“Thus, the allegation that the Will was forged is wholly unsubstantiated. No legal heir or other interested party has challenged the Will before any competent Court. In the absence of any cogent or contemporaneous evidence challenging the execution or validity of the Will, the Commercial Court was justified in treating the document as having persuasive evidentiary value,” the Court said.
It added that the tenant's plea of forgery of the Will, unaccompanied by particulars or a rival paramount title, could not constitute a triable issue.
Further, the Bench said that Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, which governs tenure of leases in absence of a documented contract or local practice, must be construed in the light of the principle that landlord is entitled to regain possession upon termination of the tenancy.
It said that once the notice period expires, the landlord can regain possession, and the tenant cannot extend his occupancy beyond the lawful term, without the landlord's consent.
“This statutory right assumes particular significance in cases where tenancy is not governed by any special enactment, such as the DRC Act,” the Court said.
“Furthermore, the statutory scheme under Section 106 TPA also underscores that, in absence of specific contrary agreement, the landlord's right to terminate the tenancy is not fettered except by the statutory requirement of termination notice. Once such notice is served or deemed served (as by institution of a suit), the tenancy stands terminated, and the tenant's status is reduced to that of an unauthorised occupant,” it added.
Upholding the decision of the Commercial Court, the Court rejected the tenant's challenge, observing that it lacked merit particularly when the factum of tenancy stood admitted.
It thus directed the tenant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the landlord within three months.
Title: NASEEM AHMED v. DEEPAK SINGH