Summarize the following court judgment. Civil Appeal No. 80 of 1981. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7.80 of the Allahabad High court in Civil Miscellaneous W.P.No. 5661 of 1979. Manoj Swarup for the Appellant. S.K. 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 10.7.1980 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 3(1)(f) 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	 i.e. No. 7/3	 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 21.5.1956. 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 6.7.1971 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 24.4.1956 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	 i.e. 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 K.B. Asthana	 learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Shri B.D. 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 3.4.1972 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 e.g.	 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 3(1)(f) 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 3(1) 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. R.S.S. Appeal dismissed.

Mainavati	 who had purchased the premises in question at a court sale	 conveyed the same by sale in favour of Gopinath. The appellant who was in occupation attorned his tenancy in favour of Gopinath. Gopinath	 in turn	 sold the property in favour of Chhaya Gupta	 the third respondent. The appellant tenant on being asked to attorn the tenancy in favour of Chhaya Gupta	 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 on the ground that Mainavati had not acquired the totality of all rights and interests in the property and	 as such	 her title was defective. This act of disclaimer of the title of Gopinath to whom the appellant had attorned was the foundation of proceedings in ejectment. The High Court	 dismissing the appellant 's writ petition	 upheld the order of ejectment made by the Courts below. Before this Court it was contended by the appellant: (1) that the High Court was in error in its view that the stand taken by the appellant amounted in law to a denial of title of the landlord	 and (2) that the view of the High Court on the scope of a tenant 's estoppel was erroneous. Dismissing the appeal	 it was ^ HELD: (1) The law as to the estoppel of a tenant under Section 116 of the Evidence Act was a recognition	 and statutory assimilation	 of the equitable principles underlying the doctrine of estoppel in rela 248 tion to tenants. The Section was not exhaustive of the law of estoppel. The section inter alia	 predicated that no tenant of immovable property during the continuance of the tenancy	 would be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had	 at the beginning of the tenancy	 title to such property. [251B C] (2) There could be a denial of the title of his landlord without the tenant renouncing his own character as a tenant	 where	 for instance	 he had set up a plea of Jus tertii. [254B] (3) The derivative title of the third respondent was not denied on any other ground than the one that the vendor	 Gopinath to whom appellant had attorned had himself no title	 the implication of which was 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. What appellant did	 indeed	 amounted to a denial of title which appellant was precluded from doing on the general principles of estoppel between landlord and tenant. [254C D] (4) Having regard to the findings of fact recorded by the High Court	 it appeared to be a clear case which attracted the grounds for eviction under section 3 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act	 1947. [254E F] Kumar Krishna Prasad Lal Singha Das vs Baraboni Coal Concern Ltd.	 	 referred to.