Judicial estoppel bars a tenant from denying landlord status after earlier admitting it in rent proceedings.

A tenant who had earlier treated the respondent as landlord could not later deny that relationship in eviction proceedings or seek a stay under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act until title was proved elsewhere. The Court applied judicial estoppel and abuse-of-process principles to reject mutually inconsistent stands on the same factual issue in successive proceedings, and held that the tenant's explanation for the changed position required proof and could not displace the earlier admission at that stage. The Act's broad definition of landlord also covered a person receiving rent or entitled to receive rent, and the tenant's own case showed rent payment to the respondent. The eviction proceedings could therefore continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the tenant could deny the landlord's title and seek stay of eviction proceedings under Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act after taking a contrary stand in earlier proceedings, and whether the respondent could be treated as the landlord within the meaning of the Act.

Analysis: The tenant had earlier asserted that the respondent was his landlord, but in the later eviction proceedings he denied that relationship and sought to postpone the suit until the respondent proved title in a separate declaratory suit. The Court held that a litigant cannot be permitted to take mutually inconsistent positions on the same factual issue in successive proceedings, as that would amount to judicial estoppel and abuse of the process of court. The tenant's explanation for the change of stand was treated as a matter requiring proof and could not displace the earlier position at that stage. Independently, the Act defines landlord broadly to include a person receiving rent or entitled to receive rent, and the tenant's own case showed payment of rent to the respondent.

Conclusion: The tenant was not entitled to deny the landlord-tenant relationship or to obtain stay under Section 43, and the respondent was entitled to maintain the eviction proceedings as landlord.

---