LAWS(SC)-1989-1-46

KUNDAN MAL Vs. GURUDUTTA

Decided On January 25, 1989
KUNDAN MAL Appellant
V/S
Gurudutta Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of the Rajasthan High court confirming the decree of eviction of the appellant from certain premises under S. 13 (l) (/) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') , on the ground that he had denied the title of the respondent-landlord.

(2.) The appellant has been in possession of the structure in question since 1953, when he was inducted therein by the owner one Nawab M. Ali Khan. In 1969 Nawab M. Ali Khan died, and it appears that some dispute arose between his legal representatives and the present respondent 1. It further appears that the dispute was finally settled in favour of respondent 1 and according to the case of the appellant he duly recognised him as his landlord and started paying rent. In 1973 the appellant received a notice from the Municipal authorities asking him to remove the disputed structures on the ground that it was erected on government land. According to the appellants Case,the notice was issued at the instance of respondent I, who was anxious to evict the appellant. The appellant, in the situation, was forced to file a suit in the civil court challenging the validity of the notice and praying for injunction against the Municipal authorities from interfering with his possession. Respondent 1 filed the present suit on the twin grounds of default in payment of rent and denial of his title. The case of default in payment of rent was rejected but the suit was decreed on the ground of denial of title. On appeal, the Additional District Judge confirmed the decree. The appellants second appeal was also rejected by the High court at the admission stage.

(3.) The appellants plaint in the earlier suit by which it is suggested that he challenged the respondents title was filed in the present case and marked as Ex. 1. The first appellate court has while recording its finding against the appellant observed that the statements in the plaint amount to disclaimer and, in any event, it appears that the appellant failed to acknowledge the landlords title therein and consequently he was liable to eviction under clause (f) of S. 13 (1 of the Act, which reads as follows :