#360 

#Tenant #Adversepossession #Leaseagreement
It is lease agreement not sale agreement 3:16
Video Credits
Video by adege from Pixabay license.
pixabay.com/vi...
Music License from Kinemaster - Family Day
Supreme Court of India
Nand Ram(D) Th. Lrs. . vs Jagdish Prasad(D)Th.Lrs on 19 March, 2020
Author: Hon'Ble Dr. Chandrachud
Bench: Hon'Ble Dr. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9918 OF 2011
NAND RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. .....APPELLANT(VERSUS
JAGDISH PRASAD (D) THROUGH LRS. .....RESPONDENT(JUDGMENT
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
44. To sum up the legal position or status of a lessee whose lease has expired and whose continuance
is not assented to by the landlord, is that of a tenant at sufferance. If, however, the holding over has
been assented to in any manner, then it becomes that of a tenant from month-to-month. Similar, i.e.
from month-to- month, is the status of a lessee who comes into possession tinder a lease for a period
exceeding one year but unregistered. He holds it not as a lessee for a fixed term, but as one from
month-to-month or year-to-year depending on the purpose of the lease. If upon a tenant from
month-to-month (or year-to-year) and in either of the aforesaid two contingencies, a notice to quit is
served, then on the expiry of the period, his status becomes of a tenant at sufferance. Waiver of that
notice, or assent in any form to continuation restores to him his status as a tenant from
month-to-month, but capable, of once again being terminated with the expiry of any ensuing
tenancy month.
38. Thus, the suit of the plaintiffs filed within 12 years of the determination of the tenancy by efflux
of time is within the period of limitation. The defendant has not proved forfeiture of tenancy prior to
the expiry of lease period. Mere non-payment of rent does not amount to forfeiture of tenancy. It
only confers a right on the landlord to seek possession. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for possession
against the defendant on the basis of determination of tenancy, such suit is governed by Article 67
alone.
39. In view of the above, the suit for possession would not be covered by Article 65 since there is a
specific article i.e. Article 67 dealing with right of the lessor to claim possession after determination
of tenancy. The appellants-plaintiffs have claimed possession from the defendant alleging him to be
the tenant and that he had not handed over the leased property after determination of the lease.
Therefore, such suit would fall within Article 67 of the Limitation Act. Such suit having been filed on
13th March, 1981 within 12 years of the determination of lease by efflux of time on 23 rd September,
1974, the same is within the period of limitation. Thus, the findings recorded by the High Court are
clearly erroneous in law and the same cannot be sustained and are, thus, set aside.
40. Though, Mr. Vishwanathan has argued that the first appeal stood abated as the legal
representatives of one of the deceased respondents was not impleaded but we find that it is not
necessary to decide such question as on merits, we have found the claim of the plaintiffs to be
meritorious.
41. The respondent continued to be in possession of the land leased vide registered lease deed dated
22nd September, 1954. The respondent has admitted the ownership of the appellants before the
Reference Court. Such plea operates as estoppel against the respondent in respect of the title of the
appellants. However, the claim of compensation put forward by the respondent was declined for the
reason that non-payment of rent disentitles the respondent from compensation. In the present
proceedings, the respondent has denied his status as that of a tenant but claimed title in himself.
The respondent claimed adverse possession and claimed possession as owner against a person, who
has inducted him as tenant. The respondent was to prove his continuous, open and hostile
possession to the knowledge of true owner for a continuous period of 12 years. The respondent has
not led any evidence of hostile possession to the knowledge of true owner at any time before or after
the award of the reference Court nor he has surrendered possession before asserting hostile,
continuous and open title to the knowledge of the true owner. The question of adverse possession
without admitting the title of the real owner is not tenable. Such question has been examined by this
Court in Uttam Chand (D) through LRs. v. Nathu Ram (D) through LRs & Ors.21.
42. In view of the said fact, we find that the High Court erred in law in holding that the suit is barred
by limitation in terms of Article 66 of the Limitation Act, therefore, the order passed by the High
Court is clearly erroneous and is not sustainable in law. The same is set aside and the suit is decreed
by restoring the decree of the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.