In Brief
In this eviction case under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the Supreme Court affirmed that a tenant cannot dispute a landlord's title to immovable property during the continuance of tenancy. The respondent tenants, after evidence was largely recorded, sought to amend their written statement to deny the appellants' ownership, alleging they were mere power-of-attorney holders. The Court held that such estoppel arises under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act and prevents tenants from introducing new contradictory pleas at a belated stage, especially after admitting ownership during cross-examination. The High Court's reversal was set aside and the Rent Controller's dismissal of the amendment application was restored.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.