More often than not, a tenant, purposefully to defend/resist his eviction from a leased premises (“tenement”), in absence of a written contract of tenancy, outright denies the title of the landlord and renounces his status as one with a view to involve the landlord in a lengthy and costly civil trial wherein the landlord is compelled to prove his ownership and title.
Such situations are commonplace in the realm of tenancy disputes prevalent in Uttar Pradesh and maybe even in India.
An example may be had out of a case pending since 2013 under Section 18, U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, now repealed[1], the tenant having colluded with a neighbour, had given physical possession of the tenement to such neighbour, inter-alia admitting such neighbour as his landlord.
On the other hand, the original landlord had sold the tenement to a subsequent purchaser much earlier than the above-mentioned transaction and naturally disputes had arisen primarily between the tenant and the neighbour, who was in occupation of the tenement, on one part and the subsequent purchaser, on the other.
Amongst several others defences, principally, the tenant and the neighbour denied the title of the subsequent purchaser and also of the original landlord and submitted that in proceedings under the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, the question of title cannot be looked into and adjudicated, for that is the sole prerogative of a civil Court and even Section 38 of above Act places it above the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and for this purpose the Section 38, U. P. Act No. XVI of 2021 may also be looked into, which specifically bars jurisdiction of regular civil Courts qua tenancy disputes.
While there are several legal provisions, such as Section 109, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or the Section 116, Evidence Act, 1872, etc., which are of relevance here, the prime issue for this article is: –
‘Whether the question of title can be looked into and adjudicated in these tenancy/rent proceedings?’
Indian Courts have consistently upheld the principle that landlord’s rights, when conferred by a valid property transfer, should not be undermined by a tenant’s mere denial of title. This even constituted a separate ground for eviction as contained in Section 20(2)(f), U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972.
In Dr. Ranbir Singh vs. Asharfi Lal (1995 SCC (6) 580, Para. 9), the Supreme Court observed that the prescribed authority may incidentally look into the issue of title and ownership of the tenement in connection with the primary question for determining the main question about the relationship between the litigating parties as a prima-facie view is required to be formed for purpose of determining the actual landlord.
Similarly, in Shamim Akhtar vs. Iqbal Ahmad & Anr (AIR 2001 SC 1, Page 5), the Supreme Court reiterated that the question of title could be considered by the Small Causes Court in the tenancy proceedings as an incidental question and final determination of the title could be left for decision of the competent Court. In this case, the tenant had filed applications under Section 23(1), Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 for return of plaint which were all dismissed.
Further reinforcing this, the Allahabad High Court in Ballo Mal and Others Versus State Of U.P. and Others (Neutral Citation No. 2014:AHC:188109) while relying on Shamin Akhtar Case mentioned that the Small Causes Court is entitled to decide question of title only incidentally, since any finding in such suit cannot operate as res-judicata. A similar finding was given by the Allahabad High Court in Ashok Kumar Gumbar and Another vs. Waqf Khudaband Tala Mausuma (Neutral Citation No. 2019:AHC:106006, Paras. 9 and 10) wherein several judgements were appreciated by the Hon’ble High Court on the subject. Hence, a collective assessment of the aforesaid judgements reveals that Courts and Rent Authorities may look into the question of title and ownership of the tenement, incidentally and collaterally, for purposes of determining the landlord and relationship of tenancy with the caveat that such finding shall not constitute res-judicata as originally, such finding is the sole prerogative of regular civil Courts.
Notably, the Section 20(2)(f), U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 has not been replicated in U. P. Act No. XVI of 2021, i.e., The Uttar Pradesh Urban Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 but a perusal of aforesaid judgements would also reveal that the mere denial of a title of landlord would not entitle the tenant to have the tenancy suit dismissed or the plaint of an S.C.C Suit returned.
To summarize, the layered approach of the Courts in addressing tenancy disputes allows for the incidental and collateral consideration of question of title and ownership without undermining the primacy of regular civil Courts and gives a push towards the oft quoted, once a tenant, always a tenant.
[1] Vide Section 46(1), U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021