Whether a tenant shall during continuance of tenancy, be permitted to deny that landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of tenancy, a title to such immovable property? No.

Whether tenant shall during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property? No.

Supreme Court in case Shri Ram Pasricha v/s Jagannath AIR 1976 SC 2335 is pleased to hold that:­ ”15.. The tenant in such a suit is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord under section 116 of the EvidenceEvidence All the means by which a matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted for investigation, is established or disproved. Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Adhiniyam 2023 act. The tenant cannot deny that the landlord had no title to the premises at the commencement of the tenancy. Under the general law, in a suit between the landlord and tenant, the question of title to the leased property is irrelevant. It is, therefore, inconceivable to throw out the suit on account of non­pleading of other co­ owners as such.”

Similarly,their lordship of Supreme Court in case D. Satyanarayan vs P. Jagdish, AIR 1987 SC 2192, is pleased to hold that:­ ”3…..Section 116 of the Evidenced Act provides that no tenant of immovable property shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property. Possession and permission being established, estoppel would bind the tenant during the continuance of the tenancy and until he surrenders his possession. The words’ during continuance of the possession that was received under the tenancy in question, and the courts have repeatedly laid down that estoppel operates even after the termination of the tenancy so that a tenant who had been let RCA: 56/2012 Praveen Kumar vs Nisha Verma 10Of 12 into possession, however, defective it may be, so long as he had not openly surrendered possession, cannot dispute the title of the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy..”

Similarly,their lordship of Supreme Court in case Vashu Deo V/s Balkrisham, I (2002) SLT 184=(2002) 1 SCR 171, their lordship of Supreme Court is is pleased to hold that:­ ”6.. Section 116 of the Evidence act, which codifies the common lawCommon law The legal system that originated in England and is now in use in the United States. It is based on court decisions rather than statutes passed by the legislature. rule of estoppel between landlord and tenant, provides that no, tenant of immovable property or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property. The rule of estoppel so enacted has three main features :(i) the tenant is estopped from disputing the title of his landlord over the tenancy premises at the beginning of the tenancy;(ii) such estoppel continues to operate so long as the tenancy continues and unless the tenant has surrendered possession to the landlord; and (iii) section 116 of the evidence act is not the whole law of estoppel between the landlord and tenant. The principles emerging from section 116 an be extended in their application and also suitably adapted to suit the requirement of an individual case… the rule of estoppel ceases to have applicability once the tenant has been evicted. His obligation to restore possession to his land­lord is fulfilled either by actually fulfilling the obligation or by proving his landlord’s title having been extinguished by a paramount title­holder…’