Civil Appeal No 80 of 1981
From the Judgment and Order dated 10780 of the Allahabad High court in Civil Miscellaneous WPNo
5661 of 1979
Manoj Swarup for the Appellant
SK Bagga for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALIAH J
This appeal by special leave by the tenant arises out of and is directed against the Judgment dated 1071980 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc
Writ Petition No 5661 of 1979 rejecting the appellant s challenge to of the decrees of ejectment 249 granted in favour of the third respondent landlord on the ground that there was a denial of the title of the landlord within the meaning and for purposes of Section 31f of the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1947 Act III of 1947
The appeal raises a short question whether in the circumstances of the case there was a disclaimer on the part of the appellant of the landlord s title so as to incur forfeiture of the tenancy
The necessary and material facts may briefly be stated The premises in question ie No 73 Shambhoo Barracks Allahabad originally belonged to a certain Shambhoo Lal Jain
Shamboo Lal died in the year 1943 leaving behind him his widow Rajul Devi his two sons Dayachand and Dhoomchand and a daughter Mainavati
Dayachand it is stated went away in adoption to the family of one Banvarilal a brother of Shamboo Lal
Pursuant to and in execution of a money decree obtained by the said Mainavati against her brother Dhoomchand she brought the said premises for sale and claimed to have purchased the same at a Court sale on 2151956
Mainavati thereafter conveyed the property by sale in favour of a certain Gopinath Agrawal
Appellant who was in occupation of the premises as a tenant even prior to the sale attorned the tenancy in favour of the purchaser Gopinath and came to pay the rents to Gopinath accordingly
Gopinath in turn sold the property in favour of Chhaya Gupta the third respondent herein
Both the vendor Gopinath and the purchaser Chhaya Gupta issued notices to the appellant to attorn the tenancy in favour of the purchaser Chhaya Gupta
But appellant tenant declined to do so and assailed not only the derivative title of the third respondent to the property but also the validity of the sale in favour of Gopinath himself
The provocation for the denial on the part of the appellant of the third respondent s title was this It would appear that in a separate litigation which culminated in the judgment dated 671971 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No 260 of 1968 between the said Mainavati on the one hand and a certain Chamanlal on the other it was held that what Mainavati had acquired under the execution sale of 2441956 was not the totality of all rights and interests in the property but was only such right title and interest as the judgment 250 debtor ie Dhoomchand had and that the Court sale did not convey to Mainavati the interest of Rajul Devi the widow of Shamboolal Jain
It was also held that Chamanlal who obtained a decree against both Dhoomchand and the estate of Shamboolal would notwithstanding the sale in favour of Mainavati be entitled to bring the residuary interests in the same property for sale in his execution
Appellant sought to raise this defect in Mainavati s title
But the point to note however is that the appellant had attorned the tenancy in favour of Gopinath Agarwal paid rents through out the period during which Gopinath s interest subsisted
The question was whether despite this attornment the appellant could assail Gopinath s title
Appellant sought to assert that the sale in favour of Gopinath was void and conveyed nothing
This act on the part of the appellant of denial and disclaimer of the title was the foundation of the proceedings in ejectment
The High Court dismissing the appellant s writ petition has upheld the order of ejectment made by the Courts below
We have heard Shri KB Asthana learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Shri BD Aggarwal learned Senior Counsel for the contesting third respondent
The point that Shri Asthana sought to put across was that the High Court was in error in its view that the stand taken by the appellant in his reply dated 341972 amounted in law to a denial of title of the land lord and that at all events the view of the High Court on the scope of a tenant s estoppel was clearly untenable
Learned counsel submitted that the estoppel of a tenant does not go so far as to bar him from questioning the derivative title of an assignee of the reversion or from contending as here that in addition to the particular person claiming to be the successor or assignee of the reversion there were also others who were co owners of the reversion
On the first aspect learned counsel submitted that where a tenant requires from the person claiming to be assignee or successor in interest of the reversion proof of the vestitive facts on which the claim rests or where the tenant alleges that the reversion vested not exclusively in the person so claiming but in a body of co owners there was no disclaimer of the position of the tenant as tenant
On the second aspect learned counsel submitted that estoppel of a tenant is in respect of and confined to the title as at the time the tenant was inducted or let into possession that appellant could yet show that the attornment made in favour of Gopinath Agarwal from 251 whom the third respondent claims was in ignorance of the full facts and the result of fraud and mis representation and that under these circumstances appellant s acknowledgment of Gopinath Agarwal as the landlord would not debar him from contending that Gopinath himself was not the full owner but had acquired only an undivided share and interest in the property
The law as to estoppel of a tenant under Section 116 of the Evidence Act is a recognition and statutory assimilation of the equitable principles underlying estoppel in relation to tenants
The section is not exhaustive of the law of estoppel
The section inter alia predicates 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 title to such property
Referring to the reason underlying this branch of the doctrine of estoppel Marton B said Cuthberton vs Irwing 
This state of the law in reality tends to maintain right and justice and the enforcement of contracts which men enter into with each other for so long as a lessee enjoys every thing which his lease purports to grant how does it concern him that the title of the lessor is Shri Asthana may be right in his submission that a tenant who without disclaiming his own position as tenant however seeks proof of title from an alleged assignee of the reversion cannot be held to have denied the landlord s title
It may also be true that the estoppel of a tenant is primarily in relation to his landlord who had let him into possession and that accordingly such tenant is not precluded from questioning the alleged derivative title of a person claiming to be the successor to or assignee of the reversion for want of proof of the vestitive facts on which the claim for attornment is based
The rule of estoppel does not also preclude a tenant from contending that the landlord s title has since terminated by transfer or otherise or has been lost or defeated by title peramount
In English case law there was some authority for the proposition that the tenant was only estopped from denying his landlord s title only if at the time he took the lease from the landlord he was not already in possession of the land
In Kumar Krishna Prasad Lal Singha Deo vs Baraboni Coal Concern Ltd and Ors the judicial committee noticed this contention thus 252 The defendant company contended before the High Court that the section only applies where it is shown that the landlord put the tenant into possession of the property and that when a person already in possession of land becomes tenant to another there is no estoppel against his denying his lessor s title  However it was held There is in English case law some authority for the view that a tenant is only estopped from denying his landlord s title if at the time when he took his lease he was not already in possession of the land
But in Section 116 the Indian Legislature has formulated no such condition
The words at the beginning of the tenancy  give no ground for it
When a demise of land is made and acted on when the tenant proceeds to occupy and enjoy under the grant gets the shelter of the grantor s title and the benefit of his covenants it is difficult to see why during the continuance of the tenancy  he should be free of this form of estoppel Tenant who has occupied but not entered  is a difficult notion to thrust into Section 116 and quite impossible to find therein
In the present case the plea of the landlord is that the general principles of estoppel preclude the tenant from denying the title of the person to whom he has attorned
In Kumar Krishna Prasad s case their Lordships observed 
The principle does not apply to disentitle a tenant to dispute the derivative title of one who claims to have since become entitled to the reversions though in such cases there may be other grounds of estoppel eg by attornment acceptance of rent etc  The section does not deal or profess to deal with all kinds of estoppel or occasions of estoppel which may arise between landlord and tenant   
Whether during the currency of a term the tenant by attornment to A who claims to have the reversion or the landlord by acceptance of rent from B who claims to be entitled to the term is estopped from disputing the claim which he has once admitted are important questions but they are instances of cases which are outside Section 116 altogether   emphasis supplied 253 In regard to the effect of attornment Spencer Bower on Estoppel says 192
Where a tenant with full knowledge of the facts either expressly in writing or impliedly by acts such as the payment of rent attorns tenant to a person other than his original landlord or one who is claiming the estate or interest of such original landlord by assignment succession or otherwise he is ordinarily estopped from questioning the title of the person to whom he has so attorned
But here too it is open to the party sought to be estopped to explain away the attornment and so escape the estoppel to which is would otherwise be subject by proof that when he so attorned he was labouring under mistake or ignorance as to material facts affecting the title of the person to whom he attorned particularly if such error or ignorance was due to the fraud of that person emphasis supplied Estoppel by Representation by Spencer Bower  Turner III Edn The concurrent findings of facts in this case it is indeed a matter of admission of the appellant that ever since the purchase by Gopinath Agarwal the appellant attorned the tenancy in his favour and paid rent to him
Appellant did not establish that there was misrepresentation on the part of Gopinath or mistake on the part of the appellant misleading appellant into this attornment
High Court observes 
In the courts below an attempt was made to get over the effect of the defendant having attorned to Gopinath Agrawal by trying to demonstrate that the attornment was as the result of fruad and mis representation practised by Gopinath Agrawal
Both the Courts below have rejected this plea which is undisputably purely one of fact
Counsel for the petitioner made no attempt to show that the said finding of the courts below is wrong
Now Section 31f which refers to one of the grounds for eviction under the Act envisages f that the tenant has renounced his character as such or denied the title of the landlord and the latter has not 254 waived his right or condoned the conduct of the tenant There can be a denial of the title of his landlord without the tenant renouncing his character as such where for instance he sets up a plea of Jus tertii
The stance of the appellant against the third respondent s title was not on the ground of any infirmity or defect in the flow of title from Gopinath but on the ground that the latter s vendor Mainavati herself had no title
The derivative title of the third respondent is not denied on any ground other than the one that the vendor Gopinath to whom appellant had attorned had himself no title the implication of which is that if appellant could not have denied Gopinath s title by virtue of the inhibitions of the attornment he could not question third respondent s title either
Appellant did himself no service by this stand
It must accordingly be held on both the aspects contended for by Shri Asthana that what appellant did indeed amounted to a denial of title and that appellant was precluded from doing so on the general principles of estoppel between landlord and tenant
The principle in its basic foundations
means no more than that under certain cricumstances law considers it unjust to allow a person to approbate and reprobate
Having regard to the circumstances of this case and the findings of fact recorded by the High Court it appears to us to be a clear case which attracted the grounds under Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1947 Act 3 of 1947
The view taken by the High Court does not call for interference
We accordingly find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed but without an order as to costs
RSS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant and the respondents were tenants of separate portions of the premises which was later sold by the landlord to the respondents who were four brothers
The respondents filed a petition for eviction of the appellant on the ground of bonafide requirement
They contended that they were in all 10 brothers who alongwith their families were living together with their father and the accommodation in their occupation was insufficient for their needs
The Rent Controller upheld the claim of the respondents
The Appellate Authority District Judge however allowed the appellant s appeal
The High Court in revision under section 155 reversed the appellate judgment and restored that of the Court of first instance
Before this Court the appellant contended 1 That the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction was precluded from re opening the findings of fact recorded by the appellate authority and 2 that the findings of the High Court on reappraisal of evidence were wholly erroneous
Dismissing the appeal it was  HELD 1 It was no doubt true that the question whether the requirement of the landlord was bonafide or not was essentially one of 240 fact notwithstanding the circumstance that a finding of fact in that behalf was a secondary and inferential fact drawn from other primary or perceptive ones
All conclusions drawn from primary facts were not necessarily questions of law
They could be and quite often were pure questions of fact
The question as to bonafide requirement was one such
242G H 2 The landlord s desire for possession however honest it might otherwise be had inevitably a subjective element in it and that desire to become a requirement in law must have the objective element of a need
243C 3 Statute had been enacted to afford protection to tenants from eviction
In considering the reasonable requirement of the landlord the court must take all relevant circumstances into consideration so that the protection afforded by law to the tenant was not rendered merely illusory or whittled down
243A C D 4 Subject to the well known limitations of all revisional jurisdictions the scope of revisional power essentially turned on the language of the statute investing the revisional jurisdiction
243E 5 Section 155 of the Act enabled the High Court to satisfy itself as to the legality and propriety of the order under revision which was quite obviously a much wider jurisdiction in the exercise of which an appropriate case the High Court could reappraise the evidence if the finding of the appellate court was found to be infirm in law
243G 244F 6 Courts could take a cautious cognizance  of the subsequent events in order to mould the relief
245F G Mattulal vs Radhe Lal   Phiroze Bamanji Desai vs Chandrakant M Patel   Bell  Co Ltd vs Waman Hemraj AIR 1938 Bom 223 Hari Shankar vs Girdhari Lal Chowdhury AIR  Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakata vs Vithalrao Marutirao  and Ms Ranalakshmi Dyeing  Others vs Rangaswamy referred to