Jyoti Sharma vs Vishnu Goyal

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No………….of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.29500 of 2024)

Jyoti Sharma …Appellant Versus Vishnu Goyal & Anr. …Respondents JUDGEMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The successors of the landlord and tenant, which

relationship commenced in the year 1953, are the parties to this

litigation, the former claiming eviction and possession on bona

fide need and the latter, seeking retention on the ground of the

alleged successor to the landlord having no title over the shop.

The suit was dismissed but in first appeal, the judgment of the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by KAVITA PAHUJA Date: 2025.09.11 trial court was reversed, and the suit was remanded for fresh 17:12:39 IST Reason:

consideration with specific findings on certain issues. In the

Page 1 of 10 CA @ SLP (C) No.29500 of 2024 second appeal before the High Court, the first appellate court

order was set aside, on consent for fresh disposal on all issues.

The first appellate court then dismissed the appeal which

dismissal was affirmed by the High Court in second appeal.

3. We have heard Mr. Puneet Jain, learned Senior Counsel

for the plaintiff/landlord and Mr.N.K. Mody, learned Senior

Counsel for the respondents/tenants.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as

the plaintiff and the defendants.

5. Admittedly, the shop room, which is the bone of

contention was rented out to the father of the defendants by one

Ramji Das, the father-in-law of the plaintiff. The father of the

defendants Kishan Lal was carrying on a grocery business,

which after his death, the defendants, his sons, continued. The

husband of the plaintiff carries on a sweets and savouries shop

in a part of the building adjacent to the shop room and their

family resides on the first floor of the building. The father-in-

law of the plaintiff died on 07.08.1999 before which he executed

a Will dated 12.05.1999, bequeathing the shop room to his

daughter-in-law, the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit for

Page 2 of 10 CA @ SLP (C) No.29500 of 2024 recovery of rent defaulted, from January 2000, and eviction on

the ground of bona fide need. The bona fide need projected was

of joining her husband’s business, to expand it to the room

rented out. The plaintiff also asserted that the adjacent shop

room in which her husband was carrying on business was

bequeathed by her father-in-law to her children, who have also

joined the business.

6. The defendants disputed the very title of Ramji Das and

assailed the Will as a fraudulent one. It was asserted that Ramji

Das never had title since the premises belonged to one Sua Lal,

the paternal uncle of Ramji Das who died in 1984. The

defendants, however admitted that the rent deed was executed

by Ramji Das and he was receiving rent from the tenants

through his son, the plaintiff’s husband, which, the plaintiff

asserted was continued for a few months after his death too.

7. The trial court found that after the death of the father-in-

law, there was no attornment of tenancy, and the defendants

were never informed of the bequest. The trial court expressed

suspicion over the Will, based on the comparison of the

signatures of the Will with the rent receipt, allegedly issued by

Page 3 of 10 CA @ SLP (C) No.29500 of 2024 Ramji Das. It was also found that the husband of the plaintiff

received the rent after the death of Ramji Das. On these

grounds, it was held that the plaintiff failed to prove the

ownership of the disputed shop and the landlord-tenant

relationship, disentitling the plaintiff from recovery of rent, and

eviction on grounds of bona fide need. The first appellate court

first remanded certain issues but on remand by the High Court,

affirmed the findings of the trial court which was affirmed by the

High Court in a further second appeal.

8. Before the High Court, the plaintiff produced an order

dated 09.02.2018 of the Additional District Judge, probating the

Will in Probate Case No.8 of 2013. Though, the said document

was sought to be produced under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 19081, the application was rejected. The

High Court found that there was no cause to entertain an

application for production of an order, which the applicant did

not obtain at any time when the proceedings were pending

before the trial court and the appellate court.

1 for short, ‘the CPC’ Page 4 of 10 CA @ SLP (C) No.29500 of 2024

9. True, the proceedings for probate was itself initiated in

the year 2015 after the appeal was decided on remand by order

dated 13.10.2009. The order in probate was issued when the

matter was pending before the High Court. It is pertinent, as

seen from the order of the trial court that the deceased Ramji

Das had left behind other legal heirs also, his wife, three

daughters and the wife and children of a deceased son. None

of them had challenged the Will when the matter was pending

before the trial court. One of the grounds taken by the trial

court to suspect the Will was that though it is mentioned in the

Will that the daughters of the testator were married of with their

shares and even the wife and children of the deceased son had

no interest in the property, nothing was kept aside for the wife.

The finding of the trial court that it is not natural that a person

would not keep in mind the interest of his own wife, according

to us, is not a valid ground to suspect the intentions of the

testator or the probity of the bequest made. In any event, when

an order of probate was produced, which is not mandatory, the

claim of the plaintiff through a Will attains a legal sanctity which

could not have been brushed aside by the High Court. It is trite

Page 5 of 10 CA @ SLP (C) No.29500 of 2024 that in a suit for eviction, the proof of ownership of the tenanted

premises is not to be strictly looked at as in a suit for declaration

of title.

10. In any event, the grounds on which the Will was

suspected by the trial court cannot be upheld. It was admitted

by the defendants that prior to and after the death of Ramji Das,

rent was paid to the husband of the plaintiff. It is the contention

of the defendants that prior to the landlord’s death, his son

collected the rent from them on his behalf and after his death,

they paid the rent accepting his status as a landlord, being the

son of the original landlord. The dispute raised insofar as the

ownership of Ramji Das cannot at all be accepted since Exhibit

P-18, the relinquishment deed issued by Sua Lal as far back as

in 1953, on the strength of which Ramji Das had given the

disputed shop room on rent to the father of the defendants is

clearly established. The tenant having come into possession of

the tenanted premises by a rent deed executed by the earlier

landlord, cannot turn around and challenge his ownership. It is

also an admitted fact that from 1953, the predecessor of the

defendants and the defendants, after their father’s death had

Page 6 of 10 CA @ SLP (C) No.29500 of 2024 been paying rent to the said Ramji Das. The dispute regarding

the title of Ramji Das could not have been raised by the tenant

who had come into the premises by virtue of a deed executed

by Ramji Das to whom, for more than half a century, the tenants

were also paying rent.

11. Insofar as the attornment of the tenancy, the plaintiff’s

husband mounted the witness box and asserted that he had

been collecting rent after the death of his father, for and on

behalf of his wife, the plaintiff. The defendants also do not have

a case that any rent was paid from January 2000 onwards. In this

context, though set aside by the High Court, we notice the

findings in the judgment dated 11.08.2008 in the initial first

appeal filed, decreeing the suit. It was found that the Will

executed by Ramji Das was not challenged by any other heir

and the relinquishment deed Exhibit P-18 was emphasized.

Further, on the question of attornment, it was found that Exhibit

P-9 registered notice was sent by the plaintiff to the defendants

in their address and Exhibit P-10 and P-11 receipts of the notice

sent were produced. The trial court disbelieved the same only

on the ground that there was no acknowledgement produced.

Page 7 of 10 CA @ SLP (C) No.29500 of 2024 The first appellate court, had at the first instance held that since

the registered notice sent in the address of the tenant was

proved, the presumption is that the registered notice sent was

received by the addressee. The registered notice sent clearly

indicated the bequest by Will and the assertion of ownership of

the tenanted shop.

12. It was vehemently argued by the learned senior counsel

appearing for the respondent-tenant that since ownership was

not established and there were concurrent findings of three

courts it cannot be interfered with by this Court. We are

conscious that there are three concurrent findings against the

plaintiff, but though set aside, the findings as coming out from

the judgment in the first appeal, at the first instance, brings

forth a divergent opinion, which is also based on the evidence

led at the trial. The setting aside of the said order in first appeal

was only on consent of the parties, for a remand, to enable a

fresh consideration. We hasten to observe that we are not, for a

moment, restoring the order of the first appellate court at the

first instance, which has been set aside by the High Court.

Page 8 of 10 CA @ SLP (C) No.29500 of 2024 However, having looked at the same, we find it to have dealt

with the issue in the same manner as we have dealt with it.

13. As for the bona fide need, there is no dispute as to the

business carried on; of sweets and savouries, in the adjacent

shop room. There is also no dispute on the sons of the plaintiff

also having joined the business and the plaintiff’s intention to

participate in the business, thus expanding it to the tenanted

premises. The bona fide need hence stands established.

14. On the above reasoning, we find the concurring decisions

of all the three courts to have not considered the material

evidence and entered into findings in a perverse manner based

on mere surmises and conjectures. We set aside the orders

below and decree the suit, directing the recovery of rent

arrears from January 2000 till the handing over of the

possession and order eviction on the grounds of default in

payment of rent as also for the bona fide need. Only considering

the long period of tenancy, we enable the respondents herein

to continue in possession for six months, subject to their filing

an undertaking before the trial court to pay the arrears of rent

within one month and give vacant possession within six months

Page 9 of 10 CA @ SLP (C) No.29500 of 2024 from today; which undertaking shall be filed within two weeks

from the date of this judgement. If no undertaking is filed the

plaintiff would be entitled to seek summary eviction of the

tenants from the premises.

15. The appeal stands allowed and the suit stands decreed as

above. With the above reservation, all pending applications

are disposed of.

16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

………….……………………. J.

(J.K. MAHESHWARI)

………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN) New Delhi;

September 11, 2025.

Page 10 of 10 CA @ SLP (C) No.29500 of 2024