The Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Eknath Lad vs. Chiu Mao Chen in Civil Appeal No. 4726 of 2010 decided on 18.12.2019 held that though a tenant cannot challenge the title of his landlord however, the said principle shall not apply where there was no attornment to the landlord and the tenant challenges the derivative title of the landlord.
Facts
A suit for possession was instituted with respect to the suit property by a “Sri Sabari Corporation” styled as a co-ownership firm comprising of seventeen individuals. The Defendant in the said suit was the tenant of the suit property. The original plaintiffs claimed to have derived their right, title and interest to the suit property from the original lessor/owner of the suit property i.e. a partnership firm under the same name upon its dissolution. The original plaintiffs contended that some of them were the erstwhile partners and others were their relatives and they came to own the subject premises as residue property in accordance with Section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The Trial Court decreed the suit for possession as well as mesne profit from the date of service of notice of termination and gave the defendant six months’ time to vacate the subject-premises. However, the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial court.
In the appeal before the Supreme Court, the present appellant claimed to be the successor-in-interest of the seventeen individuals who had instituted the suit in the name of joint proprietary firm and claims to have purchased the subject premises from the original owners. His substitution in this appeal was allowed by the Apex Court.
The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that did not have jural relationship to initiate the action.
Issue
The main question which arose for determination in this appeal was whether the original plaintiffs had the locus to institute the suit or not.
Ratio
The Apex Court acknowledged that though the principle of estoppel bars a tenant from questioning the title of landlords but this principle could not have been made applicable in the present case straightaway as the main defence set up by the tenant was that he had acknowledged the said partnership firm as the landlord but had questioned the locus standi of the original plaintiffs, who operated under the same trade name. In absence of attornment or public notice of dissolution, the original defendant had no way of having knowledge of change of landlord of the subject-premises from partnership firm to a co-ownership concern. The co-ownership firm admittedly was not the defendant’s landlord at the time of commencement of the lease. Thus, identity of the landlord stood altered, though the seventeen individuals continued to operate under the same trade name. For this reason, the very fact that rent was continued to be paid to Sri Sabari Corporation cannot constitute acceptance of the original plaintiffs as the landlord by the defendant.
The Apex Court ultimately held that sufficient material was not there before the first two Courts to establish the original plaintiffs’ claim of ownership of the subject premises on the basis of a family arrangement after dissolution of the firm. In a landlord-tenant suit, the landlord is not required to prove his title in the subject property as in a title-suit. But when the landlord’s derivative title is challenged, the same has to be established in some form.
Thus, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment under appeal and remanded the matter to the High Court for re-adjudication.