https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313768 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. en-us Tue, 23 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 May 2024 19:54:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313768 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313768