P. KODDANDA RAMAYYA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Revision petition is filed under Sec. 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 15 of 1960 (hereinafter called the Act ). The tenant is the petitioner. The respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction under Sec. 10 (2) (i) and (vi) and Sec. 10 (3) (b) (iii) for wilful default in payment of rent, for denial of title and for the bonafide requirement of the building for personal occupation of the landlord respectively. The application was resisted by the tenant contending that he paid the rent upto 16-10-1980 but not merely upto 31-3-1980 as contended by the landlord and the landlord is not the lessee of the building as represented by him and due to that false representation the application is not maintainable and the premises in question is not a building within the meaning of the Act as it is only an wooden bunk situated on a pial and the said Bunk was erected in 1977 and hence the Act has no application and it is also alternatively contended that the landlord being a lessee the sublease created by him is invalid and hence he cannot claim possession. His further contention is that the original owner has terminated the tenancy of the landlord and on that ground also the application is not maintainable.

( 2 ) ON this contraversy the primary authority under the Act held that the premises in question is not a building within the meaning of the Act, and assuming that the bunk is a building within the meaning of the Act it is erected in the year 1977 and it is outside the purview of the Act, and the petition is also not maintainable as the landlord is not the lessee of the building and the tenancy in respect of this building was terminated by the original owner, and the tenant paid the rent upto 16-10-1980 and consequently dismissed the petition. On appeal by the landlord the appellate court hel d that the tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord as he executed the lease deed Ex. P. I and was put in possession of the property by the landlord and the premises in question is a building within the meaning of the Act and the same was constructed in the year 1971 and in view of the g. O. Ms. No. 630 dt. 29-12-83 the application is maintainable and the building is governed by the provisions of the Act and in view of the non-payment of rent and the denial of the title the tenancy is liable to be evicted and consequently ordered eviction as prayed for.

( 3 ) AGAINST the said order the present revision is filed.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner urged the following questions. (1) The rule of estoppel is wrongly applied in this case as the tenant can always show that the landlord has no title before the tenancy was commenced or the title of the lessor has come to an end. (2) the petitioner has attorned to a person claiming title paramount and the principle of estoppel has no application. (3) the lease in question being a subslease which is illegal cannot be enforced under the Act. (4) The tenancy of the landlord petitioner in respect of this building stood terminated under Sec. 3 (2) of the Act as he failed to occupy the building after leasing the same to the petitioner for a period of three months and consequently the application for eviction is not maintainable.

( 5 ) I shall examine these questions seriatim

( 6 ) THE rule of estoppel is well settled and it is unnecessary to multiply the authorities on the topic. It is true as held by Sir George Rankin in krishna Prasad vs. Baraboni Coal Concern that Sec. 116 of the EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 does not deal or profess to deal with all kinds of estoppel or occasions of estoppel which may arise between the landlord and tenant. The said provision principally of the tenancy. However this rule does not preclude the tenant to dispute the derivative title of the person claiming through the landlord. Further it is open to the tenant even without surrendering possession to show since the date of the tenancy the title

Click Here to Read the rest of this document