Eviction of unauthorised occupants – Appellant was allotted a booth – The allotment letter specifically provided that appellant had no right to transfer his rights directly or indirectly and was also restrained from subletting the booth – Appellant entered into a partnership deed dated 18.12.1976 with the respondent for carrying out the business of cycle repairing – However, later partnership was dissolved and respondent became an employee of the appellant in the booth – Dispute arose between the appellant and the respondent – Appellant sought possession of the booth – Respondent took the defence that he was the tenant of the premises which was let out to him in 18.12.1976 – The Chief Administrator in its order dated 04.03.1986 had concluded that the respondent was a servant of the hirer/appellant – Held: The present is not a case where respondent claimed any rent agreement – There was no rent receipt filed by the respondent in support of his claim of tenancy – When there is no evidence of taking premises on rent and it is admitted by respondent that he had not maintained any record of accounts of payment of rent, there is no base for holding that relationship of landlord and tenant is proved – Thus, respondent had failed to prove any documents pertaining to tenancy – One more fact to be noticed is that the defendant claimed his tenancy with effect from 18.12.1976 – On 18.12.1976, admittedly partnership deed was signed both by the plaintiff and defendant which was before the Court – When the parties signed a document and entered into a partnership deed, they cannot wish away the consequences which flow from the signing of deed – The appellant having categorically denied the tenanacy and there being no evidence with regard to the tenancy, there is no doubt in concluding that respondent was not a tenant of the premises – Clause 12 of the Allotment Letter prohibited the hirer from subletting the premises or any part thereof and decision of the Chief Administrator was stated to be final in case of dispute – The finding of the Chief Administrator dated 04.03.1986 cannot be ignored – Therefore, the Estate Officer directed to put the appellant immediately in possession of the premises of Booth.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The categorical finding recorded by the trial court is that the respondent-defendant failed to prove any documents pertaining to the tenancy. The tenancy is a relationship which is created between two parties. The agreement of tenancy can be both by writing or oral. Even if there is oral agreement of tenancy, the Court has to look into the circumstances and intention of the parties and other material to conclude as to whether there was any tenancy or not. The present is not a case where defendant claimed any rent agreement. The defendant has come up with a case that he is paying rent at the rate of Rs.450/- per month. Defendant in his written statement has stated that appellantplaintiff has never issued any rent receipt. Thus, present is not a case where there was any rent receipt filed by the defendant in support of his claim of tenancy. [Para 17][1070-A-C]
2. When there is no evidence of taking premises on rent and it is admitted by DW-2/respondent that he had not maintained any record of accounts of payment of rent, there is no base for holding that relationship of landlord and tenant is proved. The trial court itself has held that defendant had failed to prove any documents pertaining to tenancy. The First Appellate Court, thus, has rightly come to the conclusion that findings of the trial court that the respondent-defendant is a tenant is based on the surmises and conjectures. [Para 19][1070-G-H]
3. One more fact to be noticed is that the defendant claimed his tenancy with effect from 18.12.1976. On 18.12.1976, admittedly partnership deed was signed both by the plaintiff and defendant which was before the Court. The defendant had not denied the execution of partnership deed but he wanted to wish-away the partnership deed saying that it was a sham document to save the hirer from rigours of clause 12 of the Allotment Order. When the parties signed a document and entered into a partnership deed, they cannot wish away the consequences which flow from the signing of deed. The plaintiff having categorically denied the tenanacy and there being no evidence with regard to the tenancy, there is no error in the judgment of the First Appellate Court that defendant was not a tenant of the premises. [Para 20][1071A-C]
4. When Clause 12 of the Allotment Letter as noted above prohibits the hirer from subletting the premises or any part thereof, it is the decision of the Chief Administrator which shall be binding on the parties. The relevant portion of Clause 12 in this regard is “You will not sublet the premises or any part thereof. If there is any dispute as to whether the premises have been sublet or not the decision of the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh, on the point shall be binding on the parties”. As noted, Chief Administrator in its order dated 04.03.1986 which was passed in the appeal filed by the defendant himself, has concluded that the defendant (respondent herein) was a servant of the hirer. The said decision by clause 12 is final between the parties and it is not open for the defendant to plead contrary to the above. Both the trial court and the High Court have erred in not taking in consideration Clause 12 and finding of the Chief Administrator in its order dated 04.03.1986. The finding of the Chief Administrator dated 04.03.1986 which was passed after the order of the Estate Officer cannot be wished away by the defendant nor can be ignored. [Para 21][1071-D-G]
C.M. Beena and Another v. P.N. Ramachandra Rao, 2004 (3) SCC 595 : [2004] 3 SCR 306 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.