2020 APEX COURT [18]- A Tenant can not challenge the transfer of title by the owner of the property to a third party as illegal as it is not his business nor he has locus standi to question the same ;

  1. 2020 APEX COURT [18]- A Tenant can not challenge the transfer of title by the owner of the property to a third party as illegal as it is not his business nor he has locus standi to question the same ;                                                                                         Wakf-alal-aulad –  not covered within the definition Wakf as defined in Section 3(r) of the Wakf Act 1995.  – no permission was required under Section 51 of the Wakf Act for transferring the property.- Earlier suit challenging the transfer of property infavour of the Respondent herein by Sultan Bi was dismissed and become final – Appellant being a tenant can not challenge the title of the Landlord and as such trial court did no error in not giving permission to defendant eviction application =  Apex court held that There is no dispute between the parties that late Jai Kishan Bansal took the shops on rent from Sultanan Bi. The property which was earlier evacuee property was released in favour of Sultana Bi by an order dated 07.12.1960 which has been brought on the record as Annexure P-1. – The suit filed by the appellants challenging the sale deed dated 10.03.2003 in favour of the respondent was rejected by learned Civil Court, in paragraph 6 the following has been observed: “6. It is noted from the pleadings of the plaint that initially defendant no.1 was the landlady and plaintiff’s father was her  tenant and after his death his LRs including the plaintiff inherited the tenancy. It is further alleged in the plaint that the tenanted suit premises has been sold by defendant no.1 in favour of the defendant no.2 vide sale deed dated 10.03.2003. The plaintiff has challenged the said sale deed on the ground that Defendant no.1 had no right to sale the property as it is wakf property. Now that the sale deed in respect of the tenanted suit premises stands in the name of defendant no.2 and therefore, he having purchased the property steps into the shoes of defendant no.1 and becomes the landlord quo the tenant in the property. This being the position, the tenant i.e. the plaintiff in the present suit has no locus to challenge the title of transferee as the transferee becomes the landlord and the bar of Section 116 India Evidence Act comes into play which enunciates the principle of estoppel and provides that a tenant, during the continuance of tenancy, cannot be permitted to deny the title of the landlord. The present suit has been filed by one such tenant challenging the title of the landlord and in view of the above discussion the present suit is therefore barred by Section 116 Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A tenant, during his tenancy, has no business to challenge the title of landlord. Consequently the plaint is liable to be rejected u/o 7 rule 11(c) CPC.”