SMT. ANAR DEVI versus NATHU RAM

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 70 · Decided: 13-05-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. ANAR DEVI 
v. 
NATHU RAM 
MAY 13, 1994 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 : Clause (b) of 
Section 23A-Whether the landlord is required to plead in his application that 
he is the owner of the accommodation-Applicability of doctrine of 'Tenant's 
C estoppe/'. 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 116-Doctrine of estop-
pef-'Tenant's estoppel Applicability of in tenancy matters. 
The respondent was a tenant of a shop. He gave a notice to his 
D landlord calling upon him to effect certain repairs in respect of the 
accommodation. The landlord replied the respondent that the appellant, 
his widowed daughter-in-law has became the owner of the accommodation, 
anci therefore asked the tenant to approach her. In the meantime, a notice 
was issued by the appellant calling upon the respondent to put her in 
E possession of the accommodation as it was required bona fide, for starting 
business by her sons. The respondent sent a counter notice calling upon 
the appellant to effect necessary repairs to the shop or else necessary legal 
action would be initiated in the competent court against her. Thereafter 
the Respomlent filed a suit in the Civil Court for a decree against the 
appellant for payment of compensation on account of non- repair of the 
F 
accommodation, on the premise that the appellant was the owner of the 
accommodation. 
During the pendency of the suit, the appellant filed an application 
under Section 23A(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control 
G Act, 1961 before the Rent Controller seeking recovery of possession of the 
accommodation from the respondent on the ground of bona fide require-
ment of starting a business by her sons. The Rent Controller allowed the 
application by holding that the appellant required the accommodation 
bona fide as claimed and she was also the owner of the accommodation. 
H 
The respondent filed a revision petition in the High Court under 
70 
,• 
.. 
SMT. ANAR DEVI v. NATHU RAM [VENKATA~HALA, J.] 
71 
section 30 E of the Act against the order of the Rent Controller, High Court A 
took the view that the appellant had failed to establish the ownership of 
the accommodation as required under clause (b) of Section 23A of the Act 
and hence she was not entitled· to get po$session of the accommodation 
under that provision. 
In the present Special Leave Petition filed against 'the High Court B 
Judgment, the sole question for consideration was whether in making an 
application under clause (b) of Section 23A of the Act, the landlord is 
required to plead that be is the owner of such accommodation and estab-
lish such ownership to succeed in that application, 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : l, 'Doctrine of tenant's estoppel' which governs .the relation-
ship of landlord and tenant is founded on.a contract of tenancy entered 
c 
into by them. The doctrine of 'tenant's estoppel' could throw light on the 
question as to what can make a landlord to succeed in enforcing bis right D 
to recover possession of accommodation from a tenant under clause (b) 
of Section 23A of the Act. [75-C, BJ 
2, Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872 applies and estops even a 
person already in possession as tenant under one landlord from denying E 
the title of bis subsequent landlord when once he acknowledges him as bis 
landlord by attornment or conduct, Therefore, a tenant of immovable 
property under landlord who becomes a tenant under another landlord by 
accepting him to be the owner who had derived titled from the former 
landlord, cannot be permitted to deny the latter's title, even when he is 
sought to be evicted by the latter on a permitted ground, [76-B-C] 
F 
3, The words 'If he is the owner thereof used in clause (b) of section 
23A of the M,P, Accommodation Control Act even though are meant to 
enable the landlord who is the owner of the accommodation, to submit an 
application nnderthat clause for recovery of possession oftbe accommoda- G 
lion from bis tenant, they are not intended to require such landlord to plead 
in bis application that he is the owner of such accommodation and adduce 
evidence aliunde in that behalf for succeeding in that application. (61-G·H] 
4, In the instant case, the view taken by the High Court that the 
landlords' application under dause (b) of section 23A of the Act should H 
72 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A 
be rejected on the ground that the appellant has failed to pr

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