Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)Section 116 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Sriram Pasricha vs Jagannath & Ors on 24 August, 1976
13. This Court in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath and others,
AIR 1976 SC 2335, has also ruled that in a suit for eviction
by landlord, the tenant is estopped from questioning the title
of the landlord because of Section 116 of the Act.
Kumar Krishna Prosad Lal Singha Deo vs The Baraboni Coal Concern Limited on 4 June, 1937
The
Judicial Committee in Krishna v. Barabani Coal Concern
Ltd., AIR 1937 PC 251, when had occasion to examine the
contention based on the words 'at the beginning of the
tenancy' in Section 116 of the Evidence Act, pronounced that
they do not give a ground for a person already in possession
of land becoming tenant of another, to contend that there is
no estoppel against his denying his subsequent lessor's title.
Eversince, the accepted position is that Section 116 of the
Evidence Act applies and estops even a person already in
possession as tenant under one landlord from denying the
title of his subsequent landlord when once he acknowledges
him as his 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 title from the former landlord, cannot
CR No.1524 of 2012 11
be permitted to deny the latter's title, even when he is sought
to be evicted by the latter on a permitted ground."
Baldev Singh Bajwa vs Monish Saini on 5 October, 2005
13. The Rent Controller, Phagwara has also discussed in detail the
other mandatory requirements of Section 13-B of the Act which have been
fulfilled. It has been proved and brought on record that the landlord is
holding a British passport bearing No.094085774 issued by the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and his place of birth is
Village Birk, District Jalandhar, and therefore, he is a person of Indian
origin. He has shown his intention to come back to India for starting a
hospital in the name of his deceased wife and it is pleaded that his daughter-
in-law is also running a hospital in United Kingdom. He also wants the
premises for residing and thus, his intention to come back to India is clear.
The ownership of 5 years prior to the filing of the ejectment petition is clear
from the record and there is a presumption that the premises were required
for the personal use and the bona fides under Section 13-B of the Act is
proved as noticed by the Rent Controller, Phagwara. The observations of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa's case (supra) have
been rightly kept in mind and reproduced in detail in the impugned order
passed by the Rent Controller, Phagwara which need not be repeated.
Section 19 in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Sohan Lal vs Swaran Kaur & Ors on 10 February, 2011
7. The Rent Controller, Phagwara, on the basis of the evidence on
record, came to the conclusion that the landlord was a Non-Resident Indian
as provided under Section 2 (dd) of the Act and in view of the observations
in Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini 2005 (2) Supreme Court Cases
778 and Sohan Lal Vs. Swaran Kaur 2003(2) Rent Control Reporter 407.
Anar Devi (Smt) vs Nathu Ram on 13 May, 1994
The relevant paragraphs of judgment passed in Anar
Devi's case (supra) is reproduced as under: