Landlordship / Ownership : 6 Important Case Laws

1. Bhim Singh Saini v. Preeti Gupta [Delhi High Court, 22-09-2015]

A married daughter cannot ask for commercial accommodation from her mother / father after marriage.

2. Jiwan Lal v. Gurdial Kaur, 1995 RLR 162

There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases under Section 14(1)(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants the Courts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner. In the present case it is not said as to who else is the owner. Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to the property. Ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim the owner of the premises.

3. Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha, AIR 1987 SC 2028

The meaning of term 'owner' is vis a vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant.

4. Bharat Bhushan Vij v. Arti Teckchandani, 153 (2008) DLT 247

The concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. If the premises was let out by a person and after his death, the premises has come in the hands of beneficiary under a Will, the tenant has no right to challenge the title of such a beneficiary. If on the death of the original owner the tenant has any doubt as to who was the owner of the premises, he is supposed to file an interpleader suit impleading all the legal heirs of the deceased and ask the Court to decide as to who shall be the landlord/owner after the death of the original owner. Where no interpleader suit is filed by the tenant and the tenant continues in possession after death of the original owner without demur and without raising an objection against the person, who claims to have inherited the property under the Will, he later on cannot challenge the ownership of such a person. It is not the domain of the tenant to challenge the Will of the deceased landlord. If a landlord is able to show that there is a testament in his/her favour, he/she is deemed to have discharged his/her burden of proving the ownership under the Act. If the tenant takes a frivolous objection about ownership, such an objection cannot be entertained unless the tenant comes forward as to who was the landlord/owner of the premises and to whom he has been paying rent after the death of the original owner.

5. Ram Chander v. Ram Pyari, 109 (2004) DLT 388

It was not for the tenant to challenge the Will of the landlord and any such challenge made by the tenant is a baseless and frivolous challenge.

6. Plashchemicals Company v. Ashit Chadha, 114 (2004) DLT 408

Landlord need not prove her / his ownership in absolute term. It is sufficient is landlord is able to show that he is something more than the tenant.

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - 8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

Land Acquisition - National Highway - Inadequate Compensation - What is the Remedy [JUDGMENT]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 (1) - National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3G(5) & 3J - What is the remedy of the appellant to redress his grievance regarding inadequate compensation granted for the land acquired - The court cannot correct errors of the arbitrators - It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired. [Paras 15 – 18]

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog