S.116 Evidence Act | Tenant Who Accepts Induction Into Premises By A Landlord Can't Dispute Landlord's Title: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has said that in a tenancy dispute, when the tenant does not dispute his induction into the said property by the plaintiff (landlord) under a lease agreement, the question of doubting the title of plaintiff would not arise. A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda while dealing with the second appeal filed by Church of South India Trust Association...
The Karnataka High Court has said that in a tenancy dispute, when the tenant does not dispute his induction into the said property by the plaintiff (landlord) under a lease agreement, the question of doubting the title of plaintiff would not arise.
A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda while dealing with the second appeal filed by Church of South India Trust Association observed, "Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not permit a tenant to deny the title of the landlord, if he accepts his induction into the premises by the landlord."
The association had filed a suit seeking for recovery of possession of the property which had been leased in the favour of the defendant. The defendant though appeared before the Trial Court, did not file any written statement nor did he participate in the proceedings till the very end. He thereafter made an application seeking permission to file his written statement. The trial court however did not grant such permission.
Being aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court by the impugned order remanded the matter to the Trial Court with a direction to the Trial Court to give an opportunity to the defendant to file his written statement, thereafter frame issues and provide an opportunity to the defendant to adduce evidence and thereafter decide the suit on merits. However, the Appellant herein (original plaintiff) preferred the instant second appeal being aggrieved by "sweeping observations" made by the Appellate Court, questioning the very title of the plaintiff.
The counsel for the defendant conceded that the defendant's induction into the suit property was on the basis of a lease agreement executed with the plaintiff. Thus, if the defendant does not dispute the tenancy between himself and the plaintiff, the Appellate Court was clearly in error in coming to the conclusion that there was a cloud on the title of the plaintiff.
Following which the court said,
"In this case since it is not disputed by the defendant that he was inducted into the said property by the plaintiff under a lease agreement, the question of doubting the title of plaintiff would not arise."
It added,
"In that view of the matter, in my view, all the observations made by the Appellate Court in the impugned order regarding the title of the plaintiff shall not be looked into by the Trial Court while considering the suit on merits. The Trial Court shall confine its consideration only to the question of entitlement of the plaintiff to seek for eviction of the defendant and will not go into the question of title of the plaintiff."
Case Title: CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION v K.L.JAYAPRAKASH
Case No: M.S.A. No.28/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 243
Date of Order: 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
Appearance: Advocate PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT for appellant
Advocate HAREESH BHANDARY T, FOR R1