Holding

The words ‘if he is the owner thereof’ in clause (b) of Section 23A do not require the landlord to plead or prove ownership, and the tenant is estopped from denying the landlord’s title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act.

Summary

The tenant, Nathu Ram, occupied a shop owned originally by Banarsidas. After Banarsidas died, his widowed daughter‑in‑law, Anar Devi, claimed ownership and sought possession of the shop for the bona‑fide requirement of starting a business for her sons, invoking clause (b) of Section 23A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The Rent Controller allowed her application, finding her to be the owner based on the tenant’s acknowledgment in a counter‑notice and other documents, but the High Court set aside that order, holding that she had not proved ownership. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether a landlord must plead and prove ownership in an application under clause (b) and applied the doctrine of tenant's estoppel under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court held that the statutory phrase “if he is the owner thereof” does not require the landlord to plead ownership or produce independent proof, and that the tenant is estopped from denying the landlord’s title once he has acknowledged it. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and restored the Rent Controller’s order directing the tenant to vacate the premises.

Issues considered

Whether a landlord must plead and establish his ownership of the accommodation in an application under clause (b) of Section 23A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
Whether the doctrine of tenant's estoppel under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies to bar the tenant from denying the landlord's title in such proceedings.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 116
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961s. 23A(b)

Subjects

tenancylandlordtenant estoppelSection 23Apossessionownershiprent controlbona fide requirement

Judgment

A SMT. ANAR DEVI
v.
NATHU RAM

MAY 13, 1994

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 : Clause (b) of
Section 23A-Whether the landlord is required to plead in his application that
he is the owner of the accommodation-Applicability of doctrine of 'Tenant's
C estoppe/'.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 116-Doctrine of estop-
pef-'Tenant's estoppel Applicability of in tenancy matters.

The respondent was a tenant of a shop. He gave a notice to his
D landlord calling upon him to effect certain repairs in respect of the
accommodation. The landlord replied the respondent that the appellant,
his widowed daughter-in-law has became the owner of the accommodation,
anci therefore asked the tenant to approach her. In the meantime, a notice
was issued by the appellant calling upon the respondent to put her in
E possession of the accommodation as it was required bona fide, for starting
business by her sons. The respondent sent a counter notice calling upon
the appellant to effect necessary repairs to the shop or else necessary legal
action would be initiated in the competent court against her. Thereafter
the Respomlent filed a suit in the Civil Court for a decree against the
appellant for payment of compensation on account of non- repair of the
F accommodation, on the premise that the appellant was the owner of the
accommodation.

During the pendency of the suit, the appellant filed an application
under Section 23A(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control
G Act, 1961 before the Rent Controller seeking recovery of possession of the
accommodation from the respondent on the ground of bona fide require-
ment of starting a business by her sons. The Rent Controller allowed the
application by holding that the appellant required the accommodation
bona fide as claimed and she was also the owner of the accommodation.

H The respondent filed a revision petition in the High Court under
70
SMT. ANAR DEVI v. NATHU RAM [VENKATA~HALA, J.] 71

section 30 E of the Act against the order of the Rent Controller, High Court A
took the view that the appellant had failed to establish the ownership of
the accommodation as required under clause (b) of Section 23A of the Act
,• and hence she was not entitled· to get po$session of the accommodation
under that provision.

In the present Special Leave Petition filed against 'the High Court B
Judgment, the sole question for consideration was whether in making an
application under clause (b) of Section 23A of the Act, the landlord is
required to plead that be is the owner of such accommodation and estab-
lish such ownership to succeed in that application,
c
Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : l, 'Doctrine of tenant's estoppel' which governs .the relation-
ship of landlord and tenant is founded on.a contract of tenancy entered
into by them. The doctrine of 'tenant's estoppel' could throw light on the
question as to what can make a landlord to succeed in enforcing bis right D
to recover possession of accommodation from a tenant under clause (b)
of Section 23A of the Act. [75-C, BJ

2, Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872 applies and estops even a
person already in possession as tenant under one landlord from denying E
the title of bis subsequent landlord when once he acknowledges him as bis
landlord by attornment or conduct, Therefore, a tenant of immovable
property under landlord who becomes a tenant under another landlord by
accepting him to be the owner who had derived titled from the former
landlord, cannot be permitted to deny the latter's title, even when he is
sought to be evicted by the latter on a permitted ground, [76-B-C] F
3, The words 'If he is the owner thereof used in clause (b) of section
23A of the M,P, Accommodation Control Act even though are meant to
enable the landlord who is the owner of the accommodation, to submit an
application nnderthat clause for recovery of possession oftbe accommoda- G
lion from bis tenant, they are not intended to require such landlord to plead
in bis application that he is the owner of such accommodation and adduce
.. evidence aliunde in that behalf for succeeding in that application. (61-G·H]

4, In the instant case, the view taken by the High Court that the
landlords' application under dause (b) of section 23A of the Act should H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A be rejected on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove that she
was the owner of the accommodation which she sought to recover from the ·
tenant, cannot be sustained. Besides, the respondent who had acknow·
!edged the ownership of the accommodation as that of the appellant and ·.
had regarded her as the landlord in his counter notice and plaint Jn the
suit was not eYen entitled to deny the title of the appellant to the· accom·
B modation. [82 F, GJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4358 of
1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.91 of the Madhya Pradesh
c High Court in C.R. No. 109 of 1990.

S.K. Gambhir for the Appellant.

A.K.. .Srivastava for the Respondent.
D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

VENKATACHALA, J. Learned counsel for parties were heard by us.

Whether clause (b) of section 23A of the Madhya Pradesh Aecom·
E modation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), which confers a right on
the landlord to seek recovery of possession of non-residential accommoda-
tion from his tenant on the ground specified thereunder, requires him to
plead in his application to be made therefor, that he is also the owner of
such accommodation and establish such ownership to succeed in that
application, being a question of importance arising for our consideration
F in the Special Leave Petition, the Special leave to appeal sought for therein
is granted.

Facts needed to decide the appeal are just a few. The respondent
was a tenant of a shop, to be referred to as'thf? accommodation' under one
Banarsidas who was his landlord being .the owner of that accommodation.
G The respondent sent a notice on 23rd September, 1985 to Banarsidas
calling upon him to effect certain repairs in respect of the accommodation.
But, Banarsidas gave a reply to that notice telling the respondent that the
appellant, his widowed daughter-in-law has since became the owner of that
accommodation, she was his landlord, and as her ten~nt thereof, it was for
H him to seek the relief he wanted as regards accommodation from her.
SMT.ANARDEVI v. NATIIU RAM[VENKATACHALA,J.] 73.

However, as a notice has been issued by the appellant to the respon- A
dent in_ the meantime, calling upon him to put her in possession of the
accommodation on the ground that it was required bona fide, for starting
of a business by her sons, that that notice of the appellant was replied to
by the respondent by jssuance of a counter notice, Ex. P-4, which read thus:

11
Your notice has been received and your notice is wrong and B
mala fide. I had given notice on 23.9.1985 to your father-in-law for
repair of your shop and he gave the reply on 3.10.85 that you are
the owner of the shop. I had to give notice to you but you already
gave notice to me and the same is given for peshbandi and the
· shop needs repair and same cannot be used fully without being C
repaired. Therefore, the notice is given that you should do neces-
sary repair in the shop within 15 days of receipt of the notice, so
that the shop may be utilised fully, otherwise necessary legal action
shall be taken in the competent court and you shall be liable for
all cost. 11
D
Since the Respondent's demand made to the appellant in the said
counter notice failed to evoke the required response, he filed a suit, Case
No. 2/86-NCivil in the Civil Court at Bhind seeking a decree against the
appellant for payment of compensation on account of non-repair of the
accommodation. The plaint filed in" that suit on 23rd December, 1985 is E
Ex. P-5. The claim in that plaint, proceeded on premise that the appellant, .
who was arrayed as defendant therein, was the owner of the accommoda-
tion by stating thus : ·

"At present defendant has become its owner."
F
Another statement in the plaint was to the effect that the respondent
had sent rents to the appellant by money-orders.

However, during the pendency of the said suit, the appellant sub-
mitted an application under section 23A(b) of the Act in the Court of G
Bhind Sub-Divisional Officer and Rent Controller, for short 'the Rent
Controller', which was registered as Misc. No. 65/86-87/A-90. By that
. application the appellant sought recovery of possession of the accommoda-
. lion from the respondent on the ground that the accommodation was
required bona fide for starting of a business by her sons. But the grant of
that application was .. resisted by the respondent, denying both the H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A appellant's bona fide requirement of the accommodation for starting of
business by her sons and her ownership of the accommodation. The Rent
Controller who recorded the evidence adduced by parties, on considera-
tion of such evidence allowed the appellant's application by his order dated
1st June, 1990. As becomes clear from that order, the findings of fact
recorded by the Rent Controller were that the appellant required the
B accommodation bona fide as claimed and she was also the owner of the
accommodation, as claimed. For recording the finding that the appellant
was the owner of the accommodation, the Rent Controller relied not only
on the respondent's previous conduct in having acknowledged her as the
landlord of the accommodation in his counter notice, Ex. P-4 issued to her
C and, in the plaint in his suit, Ex. P-5, on the entry in Municipal Register,
Ex.P-2, where her name had been mentioned as the owner pertaining to
the accommodation and on unregistered family settlement made by Banar-
sidas, Ex.P-1, which showed that the accommodation had been settled
absolutely in favour of the appellant.
D
But the said order of the Rent Controller was impugned by the
respondent in a revision petition filed by him in the High Court under
section 30E of the Act. A learned Judge of the High Court who considered
that revision petition found that the counter notice, Ex.P-4, issued by the
respo,ndent to the appellant and the suit plaint, Ex.P-5, filed by him against
E the appellant disclosed that the respondent had admitted therein that the
appellant was his landlord of the accommodation. However, he took the
view, that the admissions of the ownership of the appellant made by
respondent in Ex. P-4, and Ex. P-5 regarding the accommodation did not
establish the fact of her ownership of the accommodation. He further held
that the appellant, who was required under clause (b) of section 23A of
F
the Act had failed to establish the ownership of the accommodation and
hence she was not entitled to get possession of the accommodation under
that provision. Consequently, the learned Judge by his order dated May 10,
1991, allowed the revision petition of the respondent, set aside the order
of the Rent Controller and rejected the application of the appellant made
G under section 23A(b) for recovery of possession of the accommodation
from the respondent.
•
It is the said order of the learned Judge of the High Court impugned
in the present appeal which has given rise to the consideration of the
H question adverted to by us at the outset. As our answer to the said question

1,
SMT. ANAR DEVI v. NATiiU RAM [VENKATACHALA, J.] 75

would be sufficient to decide tbe present appeal, consideration of that A
question becomes necessary.

Since tbe doctrine of 'tenant's estoppel' could throws light on the
question as to what can make a landlord to succeed in enforcing his right
to recover possession of accommodation from a tenant under clause (b) of
section 23A of the Act, it would be advantageous to refer to its scope and B
applicability, before taking it up for our consideration.

'Doctrine of tenant's estoppel" which governs the relationship of
landlord and tenant is founded on a contract of tenancy entered into by
them, is well settled. Jessel, M.R., who adverted to that doctrine in C
Stringer's Estate Shaw v. Jones-Ford, LR 6 Ch. D.l. explains it thus :

"..............Where a man having no title obtains possession ofland
under a demise by a man in possession who assumes to give him
a title as tenant, he cannot deny his landlord's title, as, for instance,
if he takes for twenty-one years and he finds that the landlord has D
only five years' title, he cannot after five years set up against tl;te
landlord the jus tertii, though, of course, the real owner can always
recover against him. That is a perfectly intelligible doctrine. He
took possession under a contract to pay rent so long as he held
possession under the landlord, and to give it up at the end of the E
term to the landlord, .and having taken it in that way he is not
allowed to say that the man whose title he admits and under whose
title he took possession has not a title. That is a well-established
doctrine. That is estoppel by contract."

Indeed, the said doctrine of tenant's estoppel, finds statutory recog- F
nition in section 116. of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for short 'the
Evidence Act', in that, it states that 'no tenant of immovable property, or
person claiming through such tenant, shall during the continuance of the
tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the
beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property'.
G
This Court in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath and Others, AIR (1976)
SC 2355, has also ruled that in a suit for eviction by landlord, tJ;ie tenant is
estopped from questioning the title of the landlord because of section 116
of the Act. The Judicial Committee in Krishna v. Barabani Coal Cnncern
Ltd., AIR (1937) PC 251, when had occasion to examine the contention H
76 ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A based on the words 'at the beginning of the tenancY'. in section 116 of the
Evidence Act, pronounced that they do not give a ground for a person
already in possession of land becoming tenant of another, to contend that
there is no estoppel against his denying his subsequent lessor's title. Ever-
since, the accepted position is that Section 116 of the Evidence Act applies
and estops even a person already in possession as tenant under one
B landlord from denying the title of his subsequent landlord when once he
acknowledges him as his landlord by attornment or conduct. Therefore, a
tenant of immovable property under landlord who becomes a tenant under
another landlord by accepting him to be the owner who had derived title
from the former landlord, cannot be permitted to deny the latter's title,
c even when he is sought to be evicted by the latter on a permitted ground.

The scope and applicability of the doctrine of "tenant's estoppel"
being what we have said of it, we shall now proceed ·to consider the
aforesaid question which has arisen with reference to the right of landlord ·
under section 23A(b) of the Act in the matter of recovery of possession of
D the accommodation from the tenant.

Whether the words in clause (b) "if he is the owner thereof' require
the landlord who submits an application under that clause to plead in such
application that he is the owner of the accommodation, the recovery of
E which he seeks from his tenant and also establish by evidence aliunde that
he is such owner, being the question that need our consideration, it
becomes necessary to understand them not merely in the context in which
those words appear in clause (b), but also in the context of the scheme of
the provision in which that clause is found and the associate provisions in
Chapter III-A, all of which were introduced newly into the Act. Hence, we
F shall advert to all the provisions in the Chapter insofar as they could help
us in a proper appreciation of the question.

"CHAPTER III-A.

Eviction of tenants on grounds of 'bonafide' requirement.
G
Section. 23A. Special provisions for eviction of tenant on
ground of bona fide requirement. - Notwithstanding anything con-
tained in any other law for the time being in force or contract io
the contrary; a landlord may submit an application, signed and
H ,_verified in a manner provided in rules 14 and 15 of Order VI of
SMT. ANAR DEVI v. NATHU RAM [VENKATACHALA, J.t 77

the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) A
as if it were a plaint to the Rent Controlling Authority on one or
more of the following grounds for an order directing the tenant to
put the landlord in possession of the accommodation, namely :

(a) that the accommodation let for residential purposes is required
'bona fide' the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or B
for any men1ber of his family, or for any person for whose benefit,
the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person
has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his
own in his occupation in the city or town concerned.

faplanation.
c
(b) that the accommodation let for non-residential purpose of
continuing or starling his business or that of any of his major sons
or unmarried daughters, if he is the owner thereof or for any
person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the D
landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-
residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city
or town concerned :

Provided ......... .
E
Sec. 23B. Rent Controlling Authority to issue summons in
relation to every application under section 23A. - (1) The Rent
Controlling Authority shall issue to the tenant a summons, in
relation to every application referred to in section 23-A, in the
form specified in the Second Schedule."
F
That form in Second Schedule reads thus :

"SECOND SCHEDULE"

(See section 25-B)
G
Form of summons In a case \Vhereby recovery of possession of
accommodation is prayed for on ground of 'bona fide' requirement.

OFFICE OF THE RENT CONTROLLING AUTHORITY,

(Place) ............................ . H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A To,

B Eviction Case No.

Whereas Shri has filed an application (a copy
of which is annexed) for your eviction from (here insert the
particulars of the accommodation) on the grounds specified in
clause (a)/clause (b) of section 25-A of the Madhya Pradesh Ac-
c commodation Control Act, 1961 (No.41 of 1961);

You are hereby announced to appear before the Rent Control-
ling Authority within fifteen days of the service for hearing and to
obtain the leave ofthe Rent Controlling Authority to contest the
application for eviction on the grounds aforesaid, in default where
D of the applicant will be entitled to any tinie after the expiry of the
said period of fifteen days to obtain an order for your eviction from
the said accommodation. Subject as aforesaid the date for further
proceedings shall be._ _ _ _ __

E Leave to appear and contest the application may be obtained
on an application to the Rent Controlling Authority supported by
an affidavit as is referred to in section 25-C. Given under my hand
and seal.

Rent Controlling Authority''
F
"Section 23-C. Tenant not entitled to contest except under certain
circumstances - (i) The tenant on whom the summons is served in
the form specified in the Second Schedule shall not contest the
prayer for eviction from accommodation unless he files within
fifteen days from the date of the service of the summons, an
G applicatiOn supported by an affidavit stating the grounds on which
he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave
from the Rent Controlling Authority as hereinafter provided, and
in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or in
default of his obtaining such leave, or if such leave is refused, the
•
H statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall
SMT.ANAR DEVI v. NATHU RAM [VENKATACHALA,J.] 79

be deemed to be admitted by the tenant. The Rent Controlling A
Authority shall in such a case pass an order of eviction of the tenant
from the accommodation :

Provided........... .

(2) That the Rent Controlling Authority shall within -0ne month of B
the date of receipt of application give to the tenant, if necessary,
leave to contest the application, if the application supported by an
affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentiilt
the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession
of the accommodation on the ground specified in section 23A.
c
Sec.23-D. Procedure to be followed by Rent Controlling
Authority or grant of leave to contest. • (1) ........... ..

(2) .... :........

(3) In respect of an application by, a landlord it shall be D
presumed, unless the contrary is prayed, the requirement by the
landlord with reference to clause (a) or clause (b ), as the case may
be of Section 23-A is bona fide.

Sec. 23-E Revision by High Court. • (i) Notwithstanding any- E
thing contained in section 31 or section 32, no appeal shall lie from
any order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority under this
Chapter.

2................. ..
F
Sec. 23-F. Duration of stay. · The stay of the operation of the
·order of eviction ·passed by a Rent Controlling Authority or by the
High Court shall not ensure for a total period of more than six
months.

Sec. 23-G ............. .. G
Sec. 23-H ...............

Sec. 23-1. False and frivolous application etc. A landlord
making a false or frivolous application under section 23-A or a
tenant seeking either permission to defend the application or H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A adjournment on false or frivolous or vexatious grounds, may be .
saddled with heavy compensatory costs not exceeding six months
rent of the accommodation at a time as the Rent Controlling
Authority may fix.

Sec. 23-J. Definition of landlord for the purposes of Chapter
B III-A - For the purposes of this Chapter 'landlord' means a
landlord who is -

(i) a retired servant of any Government including a retired
member of Defence Services; or

c (ii) a retired servant of a company owoed or controlled either
by the Central or State Government; or

(iii) a widow or a divorced wife or

D
(iv) physically handicapped person; or
. .
(v) a servant of any Government including a member of defence
services who, according to his service conditions, is not entitled to
Government accommodation on his posting to a place where he
owns a house or is entitled to such accommodation only on
E payment of a penal rent on his posting to such place.'

(underlining is done by us)

The legislature, by use of the words 'if he is the owoer therecir in
clause (b) of section 23A could not have intended to require the landlord
F for whose benefit that provision was made, to plea in his application and
to establish by evidence aliunde, that he was the owoer of the accommoda-
tion, becomes obvious from the various provisions in Chapter III-A to
which we have adverted to. When we look at section 23A along with the
form of notice in the Second Schedule to be issued on the application made
under clause (b) of section 23A of the Act by the landlord, an obligation
G is imposed on the tenant to obtain leave from the Rent Controller to
contest that application. For seeking such leave, the tenant is required to
make an application supported by an affidavit specifying the ground on
which he wants to contest the application. Again, if he does not file such
application supported by an affidavit or if the Court refuses to grant leave
H to contest it, the statement as regards the ground on which recovery of
SMT.ANARDEVI v. NATHU RAM [VENKATACHALA,J.] 81

possession of the accommodation is sought by the. landlord in his applica- A
tion shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the Rent Controller
in that event, is bound to pass an order of eviction of the tenant from the
accommodation. When it comes to sub-section (3) of section 230, it says
that 'in respect of an application by a landlord it shall be presumed, unless
the contrary is proved, the requirement by the landlord with reference to
B
clause (a) or clause (b), as the case may be, of section 23A is bona fide'.
Such presumption requires the Rent Controller to regard the fact of bona
fide requirement of the accommodation by the landlord to be taken as
proved until the same is disproved by the tenant. When the said provisions
in the Chapter along with other provisions therein, reflect a legislative
scheme or policy of enabling landlords of specified classes to recover C
possession of accommodation from their tenants with utmost expedition
before the Rent Controller, a forum specially constituted for the purpose
and when under section 116 of the Evidence Act a tenant is estopped from
denying his landlord's title to accommodation, whether he was there either
from the beginning of the tenancy or had become a tenant subsequently by D
acknowledging the landlord's title, it is difficult to think that the words 'If
he is the owner thereof' used in clause (b) of section 23A are intended to
require the landlord to plead in his application for recovery of possession
made under the clause, his ownership of acCOJ11!l10dation, and establish the
same by evidence aliunde, to succeed in recovery of possession of such
accommodation from the tenant. It would be so, particularly, when he was E
not so required to plead or establish on an application if had been made
by him for recovery of possession of the accommodation on the self same
ground under section 12(1)(f) cif the Act. It is also difficult to think that
the said words 'if he is the owner thereof' in the clause, require that the
landlord should plead and establish his title to the accommodation for F
recovery of its possession from the tenant, for that would be as good as
asking him to go to Civil Court for establishing his title to the property and
recover its possession from the tenant, which if is the correct position,
would, instead of advancing the aforesaid object of the provisions in the
Chapter, squarely result in its defeat. Therefore, the words 'if he is the
owner thereof' used in clause (b) of section 23A, meant to enable the G
landlord who is the owner of the accommodation, to submit an application
under that clause for recovery of possession of the accommodation from
his tenant, they are not intended to require such landlord to plead in his
application that he is the owner of such accommodation and adduce
H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A evidence aliunde in that behalf for succeeding in that application.

Our answer to the question, therefore, is that the use of the words
'if he is the owner thereof used in clause (b) of section 23A of the Act
does not require of the landlord who makes an application thereunder for
recovery of possession of accommodation from the tenant to plead therein
B that he is the owner of such accommodation and establish by evidence
aliunde that he is such owner, for succeeding in such application even
though thes.e words may enable a tenant to contest such application on the
ground that the landlord is not the owner of the accommodation if he is
not inhibited from doing so under section 116 of the Evidence Act.
c
Coming to the facts of the present appeal, as has been already
pointed out by us, the learned Judge of the High Court reversed the order
of the Rent Controller, on his view that the landlord-appellant, who had
sought to recover possession of the accommodation from his tenant-
D respondent under clause (b) of section 23A of the Act, had failed to
establish or prove that she was the owner of the accommodation by
adducing sufficient evidence in that behalf and, therefore, her application
for eviction of the tenant-respondent from the accommodation was liable
to be rejected. The question as to whether a landlord, who file an applica-
tion under clause (b) of section 23A of the Act should plead in such
E application that he was the owner of the accommodation and establish by
evidence aliunde that he was such owner, has since considered by us earlier
and answered to the effect that the landlord making such application need
not plead in his application that he was an owner of the accommodation
and he need not establish or prove by adducing evidence aliunde, for
p succeeding in such application, the view taken by the High Court that the
landlord's application under clause (b) of section 23A of the Act should
be rejected on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove that she ·
was the owner of the accommodation which she sought to recover from the
tenant, cannot be sustained. Besides, the respondent, who had acknow-
ledged the ownership of the accommodation as that of the appellant and
G had regarded her as the landlord in his counter notice, Ex. P-4, and plaint
in the suit, Ex. P-5, was not even entitled to deny the title of the appellant t-
to the ac'commodation. Hence, the judgment and order of the High Court
called to be interfered with and set aside.

H In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order
SMT.ANARDEVI v. NATHU RAM[VENKATACHALA,J.] 83

of the High Court appealed against, and restore the order of the Court of A
the Rent Controller by which the respondent is directed to put the appel-
lant in vacant possession of the accommodation, that is, application
schedule shop. However, we grant four month's time to the respondent to.
vacate the accommodation and put the appellant in possession of the same,
if the respondent files in this Court within four weeks, an affidavit with the
usual undertaking. Parties shall bear their own costs throughout.
B

B.V.B.D. Appeal allowed.