Court Upholds Eviction Order in Property Dispute: Tenant or Gratuitous Licensee.


This petition of Bhau Raoji Shelar Since deceased, through his LR. & Others v/s Trilochan Singh Sant Singh Sahney., challenges the dismissal of an appeal and the confirmation of a decree for eviction passed by the Small Causes Court in a dispute over possession of a commercial property. The Plaintiff (Respondent) is the owner of the suit premises and claims that Defendant No. 1 was permitted to occupy the property as a gratuitous licensee, while the Defendants argue that Defendant No. 1 was a monthly tenant.

The Small Causes Court had ruled that Defendant No. 1 was a gratuitous licensee and ordered the eviction of the Defendants. The Appellate Bench upheld the decision. The Petitioners now challenge this ruling, arguing that the Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the nature of the relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1. They contend that the Plaintiff's attorney, who lacked personal knowledge, could not adequately testify, and therefore the Plaintiff's case should fail.


 

 

The Court examined whether the Plaintiff's attorney, who had no personal knowledge, could provide evidence. While the Court acknowledged the shortcomings of the Plaintiff's attorney’s testimony, it emphasized that the burden of proof was on the Defendants to demonstrate that Defendant No. 1 was a tenant, which they failed to do. Moreover, Defendant No. 1’s admission in his affidavit that he occupied the property due to the Plaintiff’s generosity further supported the conclusion that the relationship was not one of tenancy. The Defendants’ claim of tenancy was not supported by any evidence, including rent receipts.

The Court also rejected the arguments concerning limitation and cause of action, finding no merit in the Petitioners' claims. Ultimately, the Court found that the Small Causes Court and Appellate Bench had not committed any error and dismissed the petition.