BANSRAJ LALTAPRASAD MISHRA versus STANLEY PARKER JONES

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 334 · Decided: 16-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BANSRAJ LALTAPRASAD MISHRA 
...,.. 
V. 
STANLEY PARKER JONES 
FEBRUARY 16, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT <\ND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
• 
Evidence Act, 1872 : 
• 
c 
Section 116---Estoppel-Licensee questioning title of licensor-Held, 
High Court erroneously laid stress on title-The stress is on the possession of 
the person who is in possession of the property at the time of agreement-
Matter remanded to High Court for disposal afresh-Leave and licence. 
Appellant filed suit for possession and for compensation against the 
D defendant-respondent. It wa:i stated in the plaint that the suit premises · 
were given to the defendant under an agreement for leave and licence. 
The defendant filed written :statement. Later by way of amendment, the 
defendant pleaded that he was not a licencee but a sub-tenant. Yet by 
another amendment, the defondant pleaded that he was inducted into the 
E premises not by the plaintiff but by another person and he was in 
possession of the suit premisf:S much before the alleged agreement between 
him and the plaintiff. On this, the plaintiff was allowed to amend the plaint 
and raise a plea of forfeiture incurred by defendant-respondent by reason 
of denial of plaintifrs title. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, but 
F decreed by Single Judge of the High Court. However, the Division Bench 
dismissed the suit. Aggrievfd, the plaintiff filed the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that the Division Bench of the 
High Court erred in laying 1:mphasis on the question of title of the plaintiff 
at the time of agreement. J[t was submitted that what was relevant was 
G the possession of the licensor and not the title. 
Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the High Court, 
r 
the Court 
H 
HELD: The Division Bench of the High Court erroneously laid stress 
334 
' 
BANS RAJ LALTAPRASAD MISHRA v. STANLEY PARKER JONES [PASA Y AT,J.] 
335 
on title which has no relevance in the background of what is stated in A 
-"'\" 
Section 116 of the Evidence Act. Obviously, the stress is on the possession 
of the person who is in possession of the immovable property at the time 
of the agreement. The principle of estoppel arising from the contract of 
tenancy is based upon a healthy and salutary principle of law and justice 
that a tenant who could not have got possession but for his contract of B 
tenancy admitting the right of the landlord should not be allowed to launch 
his landlord in some inequitable situation taking undue advantage of the 
possession that he got and any probable defect in the title of his landlord. 
(340-H, DJ 
Krishna Prasad Lal v. Barabani Coal Concern Ltd., AIR (1937) P.C. C 
251, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6396 of2001. 
From the Final Order & Judgment and Order dated 15.2.2001 of Bombay D 
High Court in LP.A. No. 161 of 1993 in F.A. No. I 109/1987. 
Bhimrao N. Naik, Vinesh C. Solshe and C.G. Solshe for the Appellant. 
A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. This is directed against the judgment of a 
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal. Brief 
reference to the factual aspects would be necessary: 
The appellant filed Suit No. 6954/72 in the Bomba)'. City Civil Court 
against the respondent inter a/ia with the following prayers: 
(a) for possession of suit premises of Plots Nos. 81, 82 with shed at 
Gandhinagar, Bharat Bazar, Worli, Bombay. 
(b) for recovery of an amount of Rs. 6, 175/- on account of 
compensation, and 
( c) 
for mesne profits. 
Certain interim reliefs were also claimed in this suit. The broad 
E 
F 
G 
H 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint were as follows: 
B 
c 
D 
E 
(a) on request of t'le- Defendant, the Plaintiff allowed the Defendant 
to use the suit premises on the terms recorded in the Agreement 
dated 01.05. I 091, which was an Agreement for leave and license 
for 11 months from the date; 
(b) ·the compensation agreed between the parties was Rs. 475/- per 
month; 
( c) the Defendant was to carry on the business of motors repairing 
in the suit premises and was not to change the user of the 
premises; 
( d) thai 2 months' arrears of compensation would entitle the Plaintiff 
to terminate the Agreement by giving one month's notice in 
writing and to enter upon the suit premises; 
(e) the license could be renewed at the option of the Defendant by 
one month

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.