did not accept the Respondent/Original Plaintiff as the owner and landlady of the suit premises. When questioned further, what she says is that it is true that after notice (Exhibit2), the Applicants/Original Defendants did not pay the rent as they have not accepted the Respondent/Original Plaintiff as the landlady. The Applicants/Original Defendants state that it is true that the Respondent/Original Defendant paid rent for the suit premises for the period from August, 1977 to September, 1978. It was a suggestion that this was during her capacity as a landlady, which was denied. However, it is admitted that rent receipts were issued for that period. The suggestion that by this her title was denied has been refuted, but at the same time the very next sentence is that, at present, the Applicants/Original Defendants accepted the Respondent/Original Plaintiff as the landlady in respect of the suit premises. The reason for that is the Court has declined to accept the landlady as the owner of the suit premises and property. There is an admission that Mr. Abdul Latif Abbas Waghoo, the previous owner, has constructed the structure on the land of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay with permission of the BMC. “I do not know what are the basis for making contentions in the affidavit of evidence”. Therefore, this is not a case where there was no disclaimer at all. These statements would go to show that there is a disclaimer and denial of the title. If what is relied upon is the Leave and License Agreement and which comes into effect much later, then, there was no reason for the Applicants/Original Defendants to state that the rent was paid from August, 1977 to September, 1978. At that stage, there was no enquiry made or no dispute raised as to who was the title holder. There was no dispute raised as to how the land begin, the structure was acquired and who held the structures, which were let out. In such circumstances and when later on this plea is coming up, but post institution of the Suits and during the course of the trial, then, to my mind, the Courts below did not commit any error in holding that this is a case of disclaimer of title and, therefore, the Applicants/Original Defendants are liable to be evicted.
