RECOVERY OF RENT - CASE STUDY

TITLE: JYOTI SHARMA v. VISHNU GOYAL & ANR. 

CASE NO. - Civil Appeal No. ….. of 2025 (@ SLP (C) No. 29500 of 2024)

JURISDICTION - Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Supreme Court of India)

APPELLANT - Jyoti Sharma 

RESPONDENTS - Vishnu Goyal and another

BENCH - J. K Vinod Chandran

Introduction

This case concerns a dispute over ownership, recovery of rent, and eviction from a rented shop room. The core legal issues involve the validity of a will, landlord-tenant relationship, estoppel against tenants, and bona fide requirement under rent control legislation. The litigation proceeded through the Trial Court, Appellate Court, High Court, and finally culminated in an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Factual Matrix

1. Origin of Tenancy - A shop room forming part of a larger building was let out by Ramji Das (father-in-law of the present plaintiff) to Kishori Lal, the father of the defendants, for conducting a grocery business. Upon the death of Kishori Lal, the defendants (his sons) continued the tenancy and occupation of the shop room. 
2. Status of Plaintiff - The plaintiff's husband, son of Ramji Das, operated a sweets and savories business in a portion of the same building. The plaintiff's family resided on the first floor of the premises, indicating her continued and substantial connection with the building.
3. Execution of Will - Ramji Das passed away on 17.08.1999. Before his death, he executed a registered will dated 12.05.1999, bequeathing the suit shop to his daughter-in-law (the plaintiff). The will was not contested by any other heir.
4. Institution of Suit - The plaintiff, relying on the will, filed a civil suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent from January 2000 onwards. 

   Grounds for eviction included d

   efault in payment of rent and bona fide personal requirement for the shop premises.

Defendants’ Plea

1. Dispute of Title - The defendants denied the title of Ramji Das, asserting that the property actually belonged to his paternal uncle, Sua Lal, who died intestate in 1984. Alleged that Ramji Das had no right to execute a will for the disputed shop.
2. Challenge to Will - The will was assailed as forged and fabricated. Defendants argued that the will had no legal effect and that the plaintiff was a stranger to the tenancy.
3. No Attornment - Contended that there was no attornment of tenancy in favor of the plaintiff post the death of Ramji Das. Rent, if any, was paid to the plaintiff’s husband (son of Ramji Das), not to the plaintiff directly.
4. Admission - 

   Notably, the defendants admitted t

   hat a registered rent deed was executed by Ramji Das. That rent was regularly paid to Ramji Das during his lifetime. That rent was paid to the plaintiff’s husband after Ramji Das's death.

Plaintiff’s Legal Arguments

1. Will and Probate - Plaintiff produced an order dated 09.02.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge in Probate Case No. 8 of 2013, granting probate of the will dated 12.05.1999. Contended that the probate gave legal sanctity to her claim and ownership.
2. Collection of Rent - Asserted that her husband collected rent on her behalf, both before and after Ramji Das’s death. Emphasized that tenants were aware of the will and the change in ownership.
3. Registered Notice to Tenants - The tenants were served with a registered notice informing them about the will and change in ownership. This was sufficient for legal attornment of tenancy.
4. Relinquishment Deed - Relied on Exhibit R-18, a relinquishment deed, executed by other legal heirs in her favor, further strengthening her claim to ownership.

Procedural History

1. Trial Court - H

   eld that p

   laintiff failed to prove ownership and the existence of landlord-tenant relationship. Suit dismissed for recovery of rent and eviction.
2. First Appellate Court - Remanded certain issues to Trial Court for further consideration. No relief ultimately granted.
3. High Court (Second Appeal) - Affirmed the findings of the lower courts. Held that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit in the absence of proof of ownership and attornment. 
4. Supreme Court - Plaintiff approached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the plaintiff had valid ownership and locus standi to file the suit based on the will of Ramji Das?

2. Whether the tenants were estopped from denying the title of Ramji Das?

3. Whether there existed a landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants?

4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recovery of rent arrears and eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement?

Judgment of the Supreme Court

The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court.

Key Observations:

1. Estoppel Against Tenants - 

   The Court held that the tenants were estopped from challenging the title of Ramji Das, since t

   hey entered the premises under a registered rent deed executed by him. They paid rent for over 50 years to Ramji Das and thereafter to his son. The source of the landlord’s title is immaterial to tenants once tenancy is established. 
2. Validity of the Will - The will had been probated by a competent court, and thus attained legal finality. Even though probate is not mandatory in all civil suits, once granted, it confers legal sanctity on the will. The High Court erred in disregarding the probated will without any challenge to it by legal heirs.
3. Existence of Landlord-Tenant Relationship - Sufficient evidence was available to establish that the plaintiff became the landlord by virtue of the will and attornment. Registered notice and continued rent payment to the plaintiff’s husband on her behalf proved tenancy continued under her.
4. Bona Fide Requirement and Rent Arrears - Default in payment of rent since January 2000 was established. Plaintiff’s genuine need for the premises for her own use was upheld. The plaintiff had satisfied both grounds under rent control law - default and bona fide personal requirement.

Final Directions by the Supreme Court

1. Decreed eviction of the defendants from the suit premises.

2. Ordered recovery of rent arrears from January 2000 until the date of actual possession.

3. Declared the plaintiff as the lawful owner and landlady of the premises.

4. Directed that all pending applications in connection with the matter be disposed of accordingly.

Legal Significance and Precedent Value

This judgment is significant for the following legal propositions:

• A tenant cannot dispute the title of the landlord through whom possession was obtained.

• Once probate of a will is granted, it is conclusive proof of the testator's intent unless annulled in probate proceedings.

• Attornment of tenancy can be inferred from conduct, service of notice, and payment of rent, even if indirect.

• A genuine personal requirement for the suit premises, coupled with rent default, constitutes valid grounds for eviction.

• Relinquishment deeds by other heirs further bolster the legatee’s title.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of respecting landlord-tenant obligations and held that technical objections regarding ownership cannot defeat the statutory rights of a rightful landlady under tenancy law. It emphasized the need to prevent tenants from using frivolous defenses to defeat legitimate claims and upheld the sanctity of probated wills in civil property matters.

READ JUDGEMENT