Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. The defendant, however, takes the defence of eviction by title paramount. According to him, Ms. Santosh Luthra stood in the position of title paramount. It is no doubt true that under the law eviction by title paramount is a good defence, which brings to an end lessee's obligation to put the lessor in possession of the property under section 108(q) of Transfer of Property Act. Essentials of the defence were thus set out in Vashu Deo v. Bal Kishan, AIR 2002 SC 569: ­ "To constitute eviction by title paramount so as to discharge the obliga­ tion of the tenant to put his lessor into possession of the leased premises three conditions must be satisfied: (i) the party evicting must have a good and present title to the property; (ii) the tenant must have quitted or di­ rectly attorned to the paramount title­holder against his will; and (iii) ei­ ther the landlord must be willing or be a consenting party to such direct attornment by his tenant to the paramount title­holder or there must be an event, such as a change in law or passing of decree by a competent court, which would dispense with the need of consent or willingness on the part of the landlord and so bind him as would enable the tenant handing over possession or attorning in favour of the paramount title­holder directly; or, in others words, the paramount title­holder must be armed with such legal process for eviction as cannot be lawfully resisted. The burden of raising such a plea and substantiating the same, so as to make out a clear case of eviction by paramount title­holder, lies on the party relying on such defence."

17. In Vashu Deo (supra) a Trust owned certain premises. The Trust let out the premises to a tenant, who in turn inducted a sub­tenant. The tenant sought to evict the sub­tenant for non­payment of rent. The owner/landlord (Trust) too sued to evict the tenant on the ground of sub­letting. In the action by the tenant against the sub­tenant the defence taken was that after institution of the lis by the owner/landlord (Trust), the sub­tenant had directly attorned to the owner/landlord (Trust) and entered into a direct tenancy with it, and as such tenant's right to secure eviction had come to an end. It was held that under the given fact situation the defence of eviction by title paramount was not available to the sub­tenant. Apex Court observed: ­ "12. We have already stated that the respondent's [tenant's] tenancy in the suit premises will not come to an end unless and until a decree for eviction on one of the grounds available under the Rajasthan Act has been passed against him and termination of his tenancy upheld by a judicial verdict. Till then he would remain a tenant of the Trust. Mere institution of a suit for eviction by the Trust, the owner of the property, against the respondent does not bring the tenancy of the respondent to an end. The respondent cannot be said to have been evicted by title paramount. It cannot be said that the respondent­tenant does not have any defence nor can he lawfully resist the suit filed by the owner Trust. The plain and simple legal position which flows is that the appellant [sub­ tenant] must discharge his statutory obligation to put his landlord, that is, the respondent in possession of the premises in view of the latter's entitlement to hold the tenancy premises until his own right comes to an end and the respondent must discharge his statutory obligation to put his own landlord, that is, the Trust, in possession of the tenancy premises on his entitlement to hold the tenancy premises coming to an end.

20. In Vashu Deo (supra) the defence of eviction by title paramount was not available in the face of the fact that the title paramount happened to a person who was admittedly the owner of the tenanted premises. If that be so, I wonder as to how such a defence can be availed of in this case when what is pleaded is at best a title dispute by Ms. Santosh Luthra. This is more so when the title dispute was sought to be created much before inception of the lease in favour of defendant (Ms. Santosh Luthra had cancelled the attorney in 2013 and the lease in favour of the defendant is of 2017).

e) It is no doubt correct that principle of estoppel under section 116 of Evidence Act is restricted to the denial of title 'at the commencement of tenancy' and that it is open to the tenant to show, even without surrendering possession, that landlord's title had come to an end. But such denial of title is through the defence of eviction by title paramount. In the case at hand, it is already held hereinabove that defence of eviction by title paramount is not available to the defendant.