Subhash Chandra vs Mohammad Sharit And Ors on 19 December, 1989
Learned counsel for the petitioner has first of all attacked the
findings of both the courts below holding relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties and has relied upon the observations of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Chandra vs. Mohammad
Sharif and others, (1990) 1 Supreme Court Cases 252 to raise the argument
that the petitioner is not estopped under Section 116 Evidence Act to
challenge the title of the subsequent landlord. In that case, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed that the tenant already in possession can
challenge the plaintiff's claim of derivative title showing that the real owner
is somebody else. The above observations in no manner help the revision
petitioner-tenant because in this case the respondent-landlord has duly
proved the Will of the original owner Smt.Devi and then of subsequent
owner Sh.Madan Lal in his favour. The revision petitioner has though taken
a plea denying the relationship of landlord and tenant with the respondent
but has not come up with any plea that if the respondent is not the landlord
then under whom he is a tenant. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
the plea raised by the petitioner is just a fake plea, concocted to contest the
claim of the respondent.