Can a tenant, after decades of accepting landlord’s title and paying rent, later dispute such landlord’s ownership over the property? The Supreme Court (“the Court”) addressed this recurring question in landlord-tenant disputes in a recent matter of Jyoti Sharma v Vishnu Goyal¹. The Court firmly held in the negative and noted that a tenant who has entered the premises under the landlord’s permission and has continuously paid rent cannot subsequently challenge the landlord’s title, especially where a probated Will supports the claim.

Background

 The tenancy in question began in 1953, when the tenants’ (“Defendants”) father took a small shop on rent from Ramji Das, the father-in-law of the current owner (“Plaintiff”). Rent was regularly paid to Ramji Das and later to his son, the Plaintiff’s husband. Ramji Das had then executed a Will in the year 1999 bequeathing the shop to his daughter-in-law, i.e., the Plaintiff soon after which he passed away. The Plaintiff sought eviction of the Defendants on the following grounds: (i) default in payment of rent since January 2000; and (ii) bona fide need to expand the family’s sweets and savouries business.

The Defendants disputed the very title of Ramji Das and assailed the Will as a fraudulent one. 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. The trial court, however, dismissed the suit, primarily because the Plaintiff was unable to prove ownership or attornment. This view was further confirmed by the first appellate court and then by the High Court. All three courts doubted the Will and accepted the Defendants’ argument that Ramji Das never had title over the premises.

The Plaintiff tried to produce a probate order from the year 2018 before the High Court to validate the Will, but the High Court rejected the application made under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Questions of Law

 Whether the Plaintiff proved ownership and the landlord-tenant relationship, especially when the lower courts doubted the validity of the Will?

1. Whether the tenant could dispute the landlord’s title, given the long-standing tenancy?
2. Whether attornment was validly established, particularly when rent had been collected by the Plaintiff’s husband after Ramji Das’s death?
3. Whether the Plaintiff’s bona fide requirement for expansion of business was adequately established?

Decision of the Court

 The Supreme Court overturned the concurrent findings of the three courts and held that all three courts had ignored material evidence and reached conclusions that were speculative and unsustainable. The concurrent findings were perverse and therefore required interference and held:

1. The Defendants had no ground to question Ramji Das’s ownership of the premises. It was abundantly clear that the Defendants entered the premises through a rent deed executed by Ramji Das in 1953 and had been paying rent to him and his son thereafter for decades. Once a tenant accepts someone as his landlord, he cannot turn around and challenge the landlord’s title.
2. In an eviction suit, “proof of ownership of the tenanted premises is not to be strictly looked at as in a suit for declaration of title.”  Further the Plaintiff’s husband had been collecting rent after his father’s death and evidence showed that a registered notice was sent informing the tenants about the bequest. Once a tenant receives such a notice and pays rent to the successor, the relationship of landlord-tenant is presumed.
3. There was a bona fide need for the premises since the Plaintiff’s family was already running a sweets and savouries shop in the adjacent premises. The Plaintiff’s plan to join and expand the business was held to be reasonable.

Therefore, the Court ordered the recovery of rent from January 2000 and eviction on the grounds of default and bona fide need. Considering the long tenancy, the Court granted six months’ time for the tenants to vacate, upon filing of an undertaking and clearing arrears within a month.

Comments and Conclusion

This Apex Court’s judgment establishes two key principles:

1. Tenants cannot opportunistically dispute the title of the landlord who inducted them, especially after decades of accepted tenancy, when faced with eviction and contest the locus of the landlord to claim eviction based on ownership defects.
2. In a suit for eviction, perfect title need not be proved. The Court here adopted a pragmatic approach, recognising that strict standards of proof applicable to title suits would undermine the statutory purpose of rent control and tenancy laws.

The judgment brings much clarity and relief to the owners seeking eviction over protracted litigation and reinforces the right of the landlord to seek eviction in case of genuine need, especially when it comes to old tenancies and testamentary transfers.

Endnotes:

^[1] 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1956

Feedback