Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8.4 Once the landlord-tenant relationship stands established, the principle of estoppel under Section 116 Indian Evidence Act would come to fore. Reliance in this regard can be placed on case titled "Sparsh Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharishi Ayurveda Products Pvt. Ltd.", 2014 (206) DLT 63, wherein it was held that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant being clearly established, the defendant is estopped from denying the title of the plaintiff to the said immovable property in view of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. To counter this, respondent has relied upon case titled "Bismillah Be (Dead ) by Legal Representatives v Majeed Shah" , (2017) 2 SCC 274 to bring home his point that even a tenant is entitled to challenge the RC ARC No. 5621/2016 Moti Lal Jain V/s Shabnam Dua Page no. 6 /12 derivative title of the assignee/vendee of the original landlord despite the bar of Section 116, Evidence Act. There is no denying the legal principle laid down in the said judgment. However, there should be some basis to the challenge. Only vague allegations would not suffice. Infact, it has been held in the same judgment that once the vendee has proved his title to the demised premises, the original tenancy devolves upon him and tenant on the same terms and conditions on which it was entered into with the original landlord. It further states that this right of tenant to challenge ownership is subject to the caveat that he has not paid rent to the vendee/assignee of the tenanted premises which results in creation of attornment. As already discussed before, the rent receipt of the year 1992 relied upon by the respondent, shows that he had been paying rent to the petitioner and therefore, his case is covered by the caveat/exception hereinabove.