Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (4.62 seconds)
Jaikaran Singh vs Sita Ram Agarwalla And Ors. on 23 April, 1974 cites

K.S.M. Guruswami Nadar vs N.G. Ranganathan on 13 March, 1953

10. It would thus be seen that eviction by title paramount may be a meritorious defence for the tenant to set up against the plea of eviction by the original lessor, vide Jogendra Lal Sarkar's case 47 Cal LJ 387 = (AIR 1929 Cal 22) (Supra) and K.S.M. Guru Swami Nadar v. N.G. Ranganathan, AIR 1954 Mad 402. This defence obviously must be established by the party setting it up. What then is the true connotation of the term "eviction by title paramount". Foa on Landlord and Tenant 6th Edition at pages 194-195 says that it is not necessary that the tenant should go out of possession, and if upon a claim being made by a person with title paramount he consents to an attornment to such person to change the title under which he holds or enters into a new arrangement for holding under him, this will be equivalent to an eviction and a fresh taking. It will thus be seen that a forcible expulsion of the tenant is not an invariable concomitant of eviction by title paramount. The title paramount over that of the lessor destroys the effect of the grant made by that lessor, thereby destroying as a neces3ary corollary the corresponding liability for payment of rent. If the eviction has been from the demised premises by a party having a title better than or superior to the landlord and the tenant had either quitted against, his will or has attorned under a threat of expulsion with intimation to the original lessor, then the eviction by title paramount is complete. For such a defence to be substantiated necessary facts must be pleaded. In the present case, as a matter of fact, the plea of eviction by title paramount was not even taken in the written statement nor was any issue framed upon it. It was merely submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that since the entire Dhalbhum Estate must be deemed to have vested in the State of Bihar, as a consequence of a notification issued under Section 3 or 3-A of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. 1950, it should be presumed that the respondents title qua landlord had been extinguished and that the appellant should be held to have been evicted by title paramount by the State of Bihar. It has never been the case of the appellant that he had ever been threatened either expressly or even tacitly by the State of Bihar to be evicted from the leasehold premises in question. Nor has it been averred and proved that there has been any attornment by payment of rent to the State of Bihar. The plea of eviction by title paramount in answer to the doctrine of estoppel in favour of the respondents must, therefore, fail.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1   2 Next