M. HAMID AHED Vs. GUHAMANI BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit is for realisation of arrear house rent. One of the houses of the Plaintiff had been rented out to the Defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/ -. Rent was being regularly paid till October 1960. No rent was paid from November 1960 till April 1903. The defence was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and that there was an agreement for sale of one gunth of land by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. This defence need not be elaborated as it was found to be frivolous by the trial Court and was ultimately abandoned before the lower appellate Court. The concurrent finding of both the Courts below is that the Defendant was inducted as a tenant in the suit house by the Plaintiff and the Defendant has not paid rent as claimed from, November 1960 till April 1963. This position was also conceded by the Defendant in the lower appellate Court. If this' finding were to determine the fate of the suit, the Plaintiff's suit was bound to succeed.

(2.) ON these facts, the learned Subordinate Judge remanded the suit with a direction that the parties would be allowed to amend tine pleadings and the Government would be made a party for recovery of the rent from the Defendant.

(3.) THE real question for consideration is whether on the factual position, as it transpires, the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of rent from the Defendant. Evidently by the resumption order confirmed by the judgments of the hierarchy of Civil Courts, the Plaintiff's title has been extinguished. The Plaintiff cannot therefore recover rent on the strength of the original title prior to the resumption. The Plaintiff can however plead the theory of estoppel, if it is tenable, to debar the Defendant from challenging the Plaintiff's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act. This section came up for consideration in a series of decisions of the Privy Council. One of the leading authorities is to be found in Krishna Prosad v. Baraboni Coal Concern : A.I.R. 1937 P.C. 251, where Sir George Rankin, in an indubitable language, gave a clear analysis of the scope of the section. His Lordship observed thus: