Eviction Order Upheld: Appellants Must Vacate Land in Six Months; Title Challenge Barred Without Surrendering Possession

The SC upheld the decree for eviction against the Appellants, requiring them to vacate the suit land within six months. The Appellants were estopped from denying the Respondents' title and could not challenge it without first surrendering possession. The SC set aside findings on title but maintained the eviction order. The Appellants were barred from filing a suit for declaration of title unless they surrendered possession. The appeal was allowed to this extent, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues involved: Ejectment and resumption of possession of suit land, denial of title by tenants, estoppel, plea of mistake of fact in lease deed, surrender of possession, relief sought in the plaint, decree for eviction.

Summary:

Ejectment and Resumption of Possession:
The Respondents filed a suit for ejectment and resumption of possession of the suit land against the Appellants, claiming that the lease was not renewed and rent was not paid. The trial Court decreed the suit for eviction as the Appellants failed to prove title to the land. The First Appellate Court and the High Court upheld the decision, stating that the Appellants were estopped from denying the Respondents' title.

Plea of Mistake of Fact in Lease Deed:
The Appellants argued that the lease deed was executed and rent was paid by mistake of fact, citing a judgment from the Madras High Court. However, the Supreme Court noted that this issue was not raised or framed by the trial Court, and no evidence was adduced on this matter.

Denial of Title by Tenants:
The Supreme Court referred to the principle that a tenant cannot deny the landlord's title as long as possession is not surrendered. Exceptions to this rule were not established by the Appellants, requiring them to surrender possession before challenging the Respondents' title.

Relief Sought in the Plaint:
Although the Respondents claimed ownership of the land in the plaint, the relief sought was eviction, not a declaration of title. The Courts were not required to decide the question of title, leading to the modification of findings on title while maintaining the decree for eviction.

Decree for Eviction and Surrender of Possession:
The Supreme Court set aside previous findings on title but upheld the decree for eviction. The Appellants were ordered to vacate the land within six months and were prohibited from filing a suit for declaration of title unless possession was first surrendered to the Respondents.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent indicated, modifying the judgments of the lower Courts. No costs were awarded in this matter.

---