R G HIREMATH Vs. T KRISHNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions raise a common question cf law. The Question is, whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant as between the parties to the eviction proceedings in respect of the premises occupied by the petitioners.

(2.) The relevant facts bearing on the question are (these: In 1915 a site measuring 1 acre 20 guntas was leased to one Rao Saheb Gopalgiri, as a building site under Sanads-Exs.P3 and P4. In 1917 Gopalgiri executed a Kabuliyat Ext.PS in favour of the Govt. The said Kabuliyat provided inter alia conditions for erecting buildings and also stated that he would pay ground rent at Hie rate of Rs. 30 (being at the rate of Rs. 24 per acre) for 50 years commencing from 1st August, 1915, and thereafter he would pay such ground rent for such further periods as may from time to time be fixed by lawful authority. It also provided that he should be entitled to occupy the said land, in perpetuity, but if he contravened any of the conditions, the Collector may declare the land forfeited to Govt and may dispose of the same. Between 1917 and 1927 Gopalgiri erected several buildings in the said site. After the death of Gopalgin, his son Ramachandragiri leased one cf those buildings to one of the petitioners in 1941, and in 1945 he leased another building to the other petitioner. In 1950 Ramachandragiri, died leaving behind his wife Kamalinibai. The petitioners continued to pay rent to Kamalinibai. The rent was admittedly paid from 1950 to 23-8-69, on which date Kamalinibai sold the said buildings to the respondent herein, under Ext.P1 for s sum of Rs.20,000. Thereafter the petitioners refused to pay rent to the respondent in spite of the latter's demand. Thereupon, the respondent determined their tenancy and brought the action for eviction on the ground that the buildings were reasonably and bona fide required by him for self-occupation. The petitioners raised a preliminary objection before the learned Munsiff stating that the proceedings for eviction were not maintainable as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant as between the parties. It was contended for them that the lease in respect of the site granted to Gopalagiri was for 50 years and after the expiry of ithat period, the land with buildings vested in the State. The learned Munsiff upheld that plea and rejected the application for eviction. But, in the appeals, the learned Dist Judge overruled the objection. The learned Judge held that Kamalinibai was the owner of the buildings and was competent to sell the same in favour of the respondent and the respondent as landlord could maintain the action for eviction. The correctness of the decision of the learned Judge is called into question in these petitions.

(3.) In my view, the problem presented is not a complicated one. It is not in dispute that the petitioners came to occupy the buildings as tenants and it is also not in dispute that they paid rent first to Ramachandragiri and after his death, his wife Kamalinibai continuously for a period of 20 years. They however, refused to recognise the respondent as owner despite the registered sale deed in his favour, in these circumstances, I am quite unable to understand the legitimacy of their stand, when they did not dispute the right of Kamalinibai to receive the rent in respect of the same buildings. The relationship that existed as between the petitioners and Kamalinibai continued under 'the same terms and conditions, after the respondent purchased the buildings. The petitioners are, therefore, estopped from questioning the title of the respondent under S.116 of the Evidence Act. If any decision is needed on this question, ste Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath (AIR. 1975 SC. 2335) in which it was also observed that under the general law, in a suit between landlord and tenant the question of title to the leased property is irrelevant.