TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a tenant, when threatened with eviction by a person claiming title paramount and having attorned to that person, is estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872 from denying the landlord's title and resisting eviction under the rent control statute.
Analysis: The rule of estoppel under Section 116 operates only during the continuance of the tenancy and is confined to denial of the landlord's title at the commencement of the tenancy. It does not prevent a tenant from showing that the landlord's title has since come to an end or that the tenant has been compelled by a threat of eviction from a title paramount to attorn to the true owner. In such a situation, no estoppel arises against challenging the former landlord's title or the maintainability of eviction proceedings founded on a supposed subsisting tenancy. Since the tenant had attorned to the paramount title holder after notice of eviction and was paying rent to him, the ingredients necessary to sustain eviction on the grounds of denial of title and default in rent were not made out.
Conclusion: The tenant was not estopped from disputing the respondent's title, and the eviction proceedings could not be sustained on that basis.
Final Conclusion: The eviction orders were set aside and the tenant succeeded in the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: A tenant is not barred by Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872 from disputing the landlord's title where the tenancy has come under threat from a person claiming title paramount and the tenant has attorned to that paramount title holder.
TaxTMI 
