The dispute relates to title of Mohideen in respect of one block out of the two, described as first scheduled property in his plaint which triggered off the suit giving rise to this proceeding. The other part of the dispute is over retention of his possession and tenancy right in respect of second scheduled property, as described in his plaint. (Para 2)
In this suit Mohideen claimed benefit of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921. This Statute gives certain additional protection to a class of tenants beyond what is contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Para 3)
The other points of law that we shall address now is on the question of validity of notice under Section 106 of the 1882 Act and whether the petitioners were entitled to protection of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act or not. The High Court found both the points in favour of the predecessor of the respondents. (Para 8)
The first defendant claimed that he entered into a lease deed with Ameenal Beevi as regards second schedule property vide Ex.A2 on 20.03.1985 and he made permanent construction over it and that he has been paying rent to the in respect of the said property to the sons of Ameenal Beevi and therefore, according to him, he is entitled to the protection under City Tenants Protection Act. (Para 8)
The first defendant only claims tenancy rights over the second schedule property andsought for protection under City Tenants Protection Act. According to the first defendant, the sale deed executed by the Ameenal Beevi in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A1 dated 30.05.1995 in respect of second schedule property, is not legally valid and it is not binding upon him. However, in order to prove the same, the first defendant has not produced any documents nor he proved that the original owner Ameenal Beevi had not sold the property to the plaintiff. Therefore, after purchase the second schedule property from Ameenal Beevi, the plaintiff has rightly issued the quit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to the defendants 1 and 2 which, in the opinion of this Court, is valid since the plaintiff stepped into the shoes of Ameenal Beevi after having purchased the second schedule property and after issuing quit notice, she also terminated the tenancy. Hence, the first defendants is not entitled to the benefits under City Tenants Protection Act. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. (Para 8)
It was further argued that tenancy could not be a subject of disposition under any testamentary instrument. So far as locus of the petitioners is concerned, this Court had allowed their plea for substitution by an order passed on 31.08.2021. Now by proceeding on the basis that the petitioners were substituted would not determine finally their locus to maintain the present petitions deriving their right from the said testamentary instrument. But as we have held against the petitioners on merit, we do not need to examine these two issues. (Para 9)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 399 SC
[2023 INSC 969]
Mohideen Abdul Khadar (Dead)Through Lrs. Vs. Rahmath Beevi (D) Thr. Her Lrs. And Ors.
Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Civil) Nos………………..…Of 2023.(arising out of SLP (C) Diary No.8674 of 2020)-Decided on 01-11-2023.
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023-STPLWeb-399-SC.pdf
