Order 18 Rule 1 CPC | Landlord Seeking Eviction Of Tenant For Default In Payment Of Rent Must Lead Evidence First: Telangana High Court

In doing so the high court dismissed three petitions filed by petitioner-landlord, seeking to shift the burden of leading evidence onto his tenants (the respondents) in an ongoing matter concerning eviction of the tenant. 

Justice P. Sam Koshy, in his order said:

"Order XVIII Rule 1, the defendant can lead evidence only if he admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint and, in addition to the admitted facts, if the defendant contends either on point of law or on some additional facts which the defendant has alleged in his written statement alleging that the plaintiff is not entitled for any part of the relief that he has sought for. In that case, the defendant would be entitled to lead his evidence first...perusal of the pleadings would go to show that the respondents have denied the contentions of the petitioner, and in the said circumstances as is otherwise mandated under Order XVIII Rule 1, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to lead evidence first and substantiate their contention".

"For proving the aforesaid three basic ingredients in a Rent Control case, particularly when the basic ground of eviction sought for is default in payment of rent, it would always be the petitioner / plaintiff who should lead evidence first and substantiate their contention establishing the aforesaid three basic ingredients enabling them to succeed in a Rent Control case," the court said. 

The petitioner had filed Rent Control cases against his tenants, alleging wilfull default in payment of rent. At the stage of evidence, during the proceeding, he filed interlocutory applications, seeking the tenants be directed to lead the evidence.

The argument raised by the petitioner was that one cannot expect the landlord to prove that he has not received the rent and the respondent tenants should be requested to produce proof of rent payment. These applications were dismissed by the court below, against which he moved the high court by filing three revision petitions. 

He referred to Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Pendyala Sudha Rani vs. Basava Janakiramayya and Others (2009 SCC OnLine AP 556) wherein it was held “Once the tenancy is not disputed, and the landlord alleges that the tenant committed default in payment of rent, the burden subsequently rests upon the tenant, to prove the payment thereof. The reason is that the landlord cannot be expected to prove a negative fact, stating that the rent was not paid. Proof, if, at all, would exist for payment, and not for non-payment.”

The high court however referred directly to the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 1 of CPC and said, “A plain reading of the aforesaid provision would go to show that it is always the plaintiff who has the right to begin evidence in a suit".

The court said that in the present case the evidence is required to be brought forth by the petitioner as he is landlord of the subject property and the respondents being the tenant of the petitioner. It said that the petitioner is to establish the "jural relationship" between him and the respondents so far as the relationship of a landlord tenant is concerned.

The court reasoned, “if the prayer of the petitioner is to be accepted, then it would amount to the respondents being made to disclose their defence first and thereafter the petitioner would get a chance to rebut the defence of the respondents more effectively”.

“Such a system is not what is envisaged either under CPC or under any of the justice delivery system, both under civil jurisdiction, so also under the criminal law jurisdiction,” the court noted.

Concluding that the dismissal of the interlocutory applications was “proper, legal and justified and does not warrant interference” the high court dismissed the petitions.