TEJ BHAN MADAN versus II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 247 · Decided: 09-05-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
TEJ BHAN MADAN 
v. 
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS 
MAY 9, 1988 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ, S. NATARAJAN AND 
M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.] 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 116-Estoppel in relation to 
tenants-Whether there can be denial of title of landlord without tenant 
renouncing. 
Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 
1947: Section 3(1)(f)-Denial of title of the landlord by tenant-· 
Forfeiture of tenancy-When arises. 
A 
B 
c 
Mainavati, who bad purchased the premises in question at a 
court-sale, conveyed the same by sale in favour of Gopinatb. The appel-
D 
lant who was in occupation attorned his tenancy in favour of Gopinath. 
Gopinath, in turn, si>Id the property in favour of Cbbaya Gupta, the 
third respondent. The appellant-tenant on being asked to attorn the 
tenancy in favour of Cbbaya Gupta, declined to do so and assailed not 
only the derivative title of the third respondent to the property but also 
the validity of the sale in favour of Gopinatb himself on the ground that 
E 
Mainavati had not acquired the totality of all rights and interests in the 
property and, as such, her title was defective. 
"This act of disclaimer of the title of Gopinatb to whom the appel-
lant bad attorned was the foundation of proceedings in ejectment. The 
High Court, dismissing the appellant's writ petition, upheld the order 
F 
of ejectment made by the Courts below. 
Before this Court it was contended by the appellant: (1) that the 
High Court was in error in.its view that the stand taken by the appellant 
amounted in law to a denial of title of the landlord, and (2) that the view 
of the High Court on the scope of a tenant's estoppel was erroneous. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, it was 
HELD: (1) The law as to the estoppel of a tenant under Section 
116 of the Evidence Act was a recognition, and statutory assimilation, 
of the equitable principles underlying the doctrine of estoppel in rela-
H 
247 
248 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
tion to tenants. The Section was not exhaustive of the law of estoppel. 
A 
The section inter-alia, predicated that no tenant of Immovable property 
during the continuance of the tenancy, would be permitted to deny thal 
the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, title to 
such property. [2518-C] 
B 
(2) There could be a denial of the title of his landlord without the 
tenant renouncing his own character as a tenant, where, for Instance, 
he had set up a plea of !us tertii. l254B] 
(3) The derivative title of the third-respondent was not denied on 
any other ground than the one that the vendor, Gopinath--to whom 
appellant had attorned-had himself no title, the Implication of which 
C 
was that if appellant could not have denied Gopinath's title by virtne of 
the inhibitions of the attornment, be could not question third-respon-
dent's title either. What appellant did, indeed, amounted to a denial of 
title which appellant was precluded from doing on the general 
principles of estoppel between landlord and tenant. [254C-D l 
D 
( 4) Having regard to the findings of fact recorded by the High 
Court, it appeared to be a clear case which attracted the grounds for 
eviction under section 3 (1) of the uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control 
of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. [254E-F] 
E 
Kumar Krishna Prasad Lal Singha Das v. Baraboni Coal Con-
cern Ltd., AIR 1937 PC 251, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 80 of 
1981. 
. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10. 7.80 of the Allahabad 
High court in Civil Miscellaneous W.P. No. 5661of1979. 
Manoj Swamp for the Appellant. 
S.K. Bagga for the Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VENKA TACHALIAH, J. This appeal, by special leave, by the 
tenant arises out of and is directed against the Judgment dated 10.7.1980 
of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5661 of 
H 
1979 rejecting the appellant's challenge to of the decrees of ejectment 
TEJ BHAN v. II ADDL. DIST. JUI)GE IVENIY\TACHALIAH, J.] 249 
gra11\e\I in favour of the third respondent-landlord on !he ground that 
there was a denial of the title of the landlord within the meaning, and 
for purposes, of Sec\ion 3(1)(f) of the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) 
control of Rent apd Eviction Act, 1947 (Act III of 1947). 
The appeal raises a short question whether, in the cirt;Ulllstances 
of the case, there was a disclaimer on the part of the appellant of the 
landlord's title, so as to

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