N S RAMANATHAN Vs. B RATNAVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the petitioner. He applied for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant committed willful default in payment of rent and that he denied the title of the landlord. The tenant, in defense, submitted that he had an agreement of sale entered into with the second respondent before he sold the building to the petitioner who filed the petition before the Rent Controller and that he bona fide thought he had title to the property in question and therefore withheld the payment of rent and he was not guilty of denial of title of the landlord or of willful default. The Courts below accepted the contention of the tenant and dismissed the landlord's petition.

(2.) THE plea of the tenant is that he entered into an agreement with the second respondent for sale of the premise in which he was having his tea shop business. The agreement of sale was is 2-10-1968. The landlord (Petitioner herein)purchased the property from the second respondent on 27-8-1969. The tenant by virtue of the agreement of sale from the second respondent, had filed a claim petition on the ground that he was in possession of the property under an agreement of sale. This was in a suit filed by the present landlord against the second respondent. The claim petition filed by the tenant (first respondent) was rejected and the tenant had not filed any suit as required under Order 21, Rule 63. C. P Code, Whatever right the tenant might have had, by virtue of the agreement of sale, on account of his failure to file a suit against the claim order, he cannot raise this question again and the title of the landlord (Petitioner) so far as the first respondent-tenant and his claim is concerned has become final.

(3.) EVEN after the claim was rejected, the tenant did not pay any rent. Therefore no claim of any bona fide denial of title after the claim petition was dismissed can be allowed. The first respondent's only remedy was to file a suit and question the correctness of the claim order. Having not done so the tenant cannot say that he continued to have a right in the premises and he cannot also assert his title and fail to pay the rent. The plea of the tenant-first respondent, therefore. , of bona fide dispute in title and failure to pay the rent due to his belief that he had title to the property cannot be upheld and this point will have to be answered in favor of the landlord (Petitioner ).