Defendants who have successfully resisted a suit for ejectment on the ground that the plaintiff was not a landlord cannot, in a subsequent suit relating to the same land, take an inconsistent stand and contend that the plaintiff was a landlord.

Headnote:
ESTOPPEL - VOID TENANCY - RENT CONTROL ORDER, 1949 - SECTION 22(2) - Defendants are estopped from raising the plea of void tenancy in a civil suit for ejectment based on the permission of the Rent Controller, where they failed to raise the issue before the Rent Controller or in appeals or writs, and also having defeated the earlier suits of the plaintiff on the ground that the ejectment suits were untenable without prior permission of the Rent Controller.
Fact of the Case:

Defendants, tenants in separate suits for ejectment, challenged the decrees granted in favor of the plaintiff-landlord, claiming that the tenancy was void due to non-compliance with Clause 22(2) of the Rent Control Order, 1949, and that the permission obtained by the plaintiff from the Rent Controller was without jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the defendants were estopped from raising the plea of void tenancy in the civil suits as they had failed to raise the issue before the Rent Controller or in appeals or writs, and also having defeated the earlier suits of the plaintiff on the ground that the ejectment suits were untenable without prior permission of the Rent Controller.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendants are estopped from raising the plea of void tenancy in a civil suit for ejectment based on the permission of the Rent Controller, where they failed to raise the issue before the Rent Controller or in appeals or writs, and also having defeated the earlier suits of the plaintiff on the ground that the ejectment suits were untenable without prior permission of the Rent Controller? 2. Whether the permission obtained by the plaintiff from the Rent Controller was without jurisdiction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the principles of estoppel, approbate and reprobate, and the need for consistency in litigation to hold that the defendants were estopped from raising the plea of void tenancy in the civil suits. 2. The court held that the permission obtained by the plaintiff from the Rent Controller was not without jurisdiction, as the Rent Controller had the authority to decide the legal and valid relationship of landlord and tenant, and the defendants had failed to challenge the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller at the earliest opportunity.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision applications filed by the defendants, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in all the cases.

JUDGMENT - Paunikar G.A. J.-The Additional Small Causes Court, Nagpur granted* a decree for possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits along with costs of the suit and an inquiry into future mesne profits from the date of suit till delivery of possession in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant-tenant, Prabhaka in Civil Suit No. 1522/1976; Krishna in Civil Suit No. 1427 of 1976; Balaji in Civil Suit No. 1521 of 1976; Onkar in. Civil Suit No.1031of 1976; Nilkanth in Civil Suit No. 1648 of 1976 and Narayan in Civil Suit No. 1425 of 1976 vide judgment and decree dated 15–9 1982. The defendant in each of these cases respectively has come up with revision application numbered respectively as above, challenging the said judgment and decree.

2. The facts in each case are similar and identical except rate of rent and description of the suit premises. The learned Counsel for the applicants in all these revision applications Shri P. G. Palshikar stated that he wants to restrict himself to only a legal challenge to the decrees and that is “whether the defendants tenants are disentitled to take the plea of tenancy being void for want of compliance of Clause 22 (1) of the Rent Control Order, 1949 in ejectment suits before the Civil Court filed by the plaintiff landlord on the basis of quit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act based on, prior permission of the Rent Controller under Clause 13(1) of C. P. and

Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 obtained by the plaintiff-landlord in proceedings before Revenue Authorities, which were contested by them He did not challenge the decrees on any other grounds or on merits. All the above mentioned revision applications are, therefore, being disposed of by this judgment.

3. The undisputed facts are that the suit block in each case forms part of a Chawl bearing Corporation House No. 104, situated on Nazul Plot No. 99, Farm-Land Layout, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. Separate block is in occupation of each of the tenants. The rate of rent paid by each tenant is admitted. The original plaintiff Shakuntalabai Dhote gave separate quit notice to each of the tenants, terminating his tenancy and filed separate suits for ejectment against each of them in Small Causes Court, Nagpur. These suits came to be dismissed on the defence raised by these tenants, that the suit premises are governed by the provisions of Rent Control Order and hence without prior written permission of Rent Controller under Clause 13(1) and quit notice based on such permission, the claim of the landlady for ejectment of these tenants was not maintainable. She then filed civil revision appli-cation against the judgment and decree dismissing her suit in this Court and all these revision applications were also dismissed. Thereafter the landlady filed separate proceedings against each of the tenants before the Rent Controller, Nagpur for permission to issue quit notice to him. The permission was granted by the Rent Controller in all the cases against tenants. The tegants preferred appeals before A. D. M., Nagpur (with Rent Control Appellate powers) and these appeals were also dismissed and the orders of Rent Controller were confirmed. The tenants then challenged the orders of Appellate Authority in writ petitions in this Court and the writ petitions came to be dismissed. Thus the orders of the Rent Controller became final and conclusive. It is pertinent to note that the tenants in any of the cases before the Rent Controller never raised the plea of void tenancy nor chal-lenged the relationship of tenant and landlord on a ny of the grounds but submitted to its jurisdiction. They also did not challenge the permission of the Rent Controller on the said grounds either in appeals before A. D. M. or in writ petitions in High Court. They thus acquiesced in the revenue proceedings throughout? As stated above two rounds of the litigation are over. The landlady had then to start the third round of litigation. She sent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis