D. SATYANARAYANA versus P. JAGADISH

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 145 · Decided: 15-09-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

D. SATYANARAYANA 
A 
v. 
P. JAGADISH 
SEPTEMBER 15, 1987. 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
B 
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control 
'f Act, 1%0: s. 10(2)(i) & (vi)-Sub-tenant-Eviction of by tenant-No 
finding regarding bona [ides of dispute as to title-Sub-tenant attorns to 
-
and paying rent to the landlord-Order of eviction-Validity of 
) 
Evidence Act; 1872: s. 116-Rule of estoppel-sub-tenant under C 
• threat of eviction by title paramount-Attorns to landlord-Whether 
estopped frorn denying tenant's title in eviction proceedings by tenant. 
The appellant was a sub•tenant of the tenant-respondent. The 
landlotd served a nodce of eviction on him in November, 1980 alleging D 
that there was unlawful subletting by the respondent and that be had 
decided to terminate the tenancy with the expiry of that month. The 
appellant thereupon attorlied in favour of the landlord agreeing to pay 
him the rent. Aller becoming the direct tenant, the appellant stopped 
paying rent to the telljli>ndent. 
' 
E 
The respondent asserting to be the lessor commenced proceedings 
for eviction of the appellant under s. 10(2)(i) and (vi) ands. 10(3)(b)(iii) 
of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1960 
• 
on lbe ground that the appellant was in wilful default in payment of 
rent, that there was denial of title on appellant's part, and that he 
I required the premises bona fide for his use. 
F 
\ 
The Rent Controller disallowed the application 011 the ground that 
the respondent not being a lessor had no locus standi to initiate the 
proceedings ·for eviction. The first appellate court, however, directed 
eviction of the appellant under s. 10(2)(i) and (vi), holding that In view 
of the denial of respondent's title as well as non-payment of rent, the G 
appellant was estopped from denying the title. The High Court having 
upheld this view, the appellant appealed to this Court by special leave, 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: J. There could be no order of termination in terms of s. 
H 
145 
146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] I S.C.R. 
A 
l0(2)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lea~e, Rent and Eviction) 
Control Act unless it could.be said that in the facts and circumstances of /-t-
the case the dispute as to title was not bona fide. In the instant case, 
there is no such rmding by the High Court. Furthermore, the appellant 
could not be treated to be in arrears of rent since he has been paying 
rent to the head lessor. Therefore, the order of eviction passed against 
B the appeDant under s. l0(2)(i) and (vi) of the Act is not sustainable in 
law. [151G; 152B] 
2.1 The rule of estoppel embodied under s. 116 of the Evidence '( 
Act is that a tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his 
landlord's title at the commencement of the tenancy, however, defec· 
C live it may be, so long as he has not openly restored possession by 
surrender to his landlord. During the continuance of the tenancy, the 
tenant cannot acquire by prescription a permanent right of occupancy 
in derogation of the landlord's title by mere assertion of such a right to 
the knowledge of the landlord. The words 'during the continuation of 
the tenancy' occurring ins. 116 of the Evidence Act mean "during the 
D continuance of the possession that was received under the tenancy in 
question." The rule of estoppel is thus restricted not only in extent .but 
also in time, i.e., restricted to the title of the landlord and during the 
continuance of the tenancy. [149E·F; C·Dl 
2.2 The general rule of estoppel under s. 116 is, however, subject 
E to certain exceptions, in that, a tenant is not preclnded from denying 
)- . 
the derivative title of the persons claiming through the landlord. Simi· 
larly, such estoppel is restricted to the denial of the title at the comm-
encement of the tenancy, it is open to the tenant even without sur-
rendering possession to show that since the date of tenancy the title or 
., 
the landlord came to an end or that he was evicted by a paramount title 
F holder or that even though there was no actual eviction or dispossession 
from the property, under a threat of eviction he had attorned to the f-
paramount title-holder. [149G-H; lSOA-B) 
2.3 In order to constitute eviction by title paramount it Is not 
necessary that the tenant should be dispossessed or even that there 
G should be a suit of ejectment against him. It will be sufficient if there 
was threat of eviction and if the tenant as a result 

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