Property lawLeaseSupreme Court of India

Tej Bhan Madan v II Additional District Judge

(1988) 3 SCC 137; AIR 1988 SC 141319881 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The tenant had attorned to Gopinath and paid him rent. Gopinath transferred the property to Chhaya Gupta. The tenant refused to attorn to her and claimed Gopinath never had title.
Held
Having attorned to Gopinath, the tenant was estopped from denying his title or the title derived from him.
Principle
A tenant who has attorned to and paid rent to a landlord cannot later deny that landlord's title or the title of his transferee; doing so is a denial of title that grounds eviction under the UP Rent Act. S.116 Evidence Act is not exhaustive of tenant estoppel.
Cite this

Facts

  • The tenant had attorned to Gopinath and paid him rent. Gopinath transferred the property to Chhaya Gupta.
  • The tenant refused to attorn to her and claimed Gopinath never had title.
  • She sought eviction under S.3(1)(f) of the Uttar Pradesh rent law for denial of title.

Held

  • Having attorned to Gopinath, the tenant was estopped from denying his title or the title derived from him.
  • His refusal amounted to a denial of the landlord's title, a ground for eviction.
  • S.116 Evidence Act is not exhaustive. A tenant may ask the assignee to prove title, but cannot approbate and reprobate after attornment.

Cite this

Citation

Tej Bhan Madan v II Additional District Judge (1988) 3 SCC 137; AIR 1988 SC 1413

Reported: https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/8307.pdf ; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1040522/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.