A tenant who has attorned to a new landlord is estopped from denying the landlord's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act.

Madan Mohan Prasad, J.

1. This second appeal by the defendant arises out of a suit for his eviction from a house situate at Ramgarh in the district of Hazaribagh.

2. The case of the plaintiff was that the house belonged to one Sukhdeo Singh and the plaintiff had purchased it from him. The house was let out to the appellant as a tenant by Sukhdeo Singh near about the year 1959 on a monthly rental of Rs. 18/-. There was, however, subsequently in the year 1962 an agreement entered into between Sukhdeo Singh and this appellant that the latter would vacate the house by the 15th of November 1962, failing which he would be liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 40.00 per month. The appellant did not vacate the house by the aforesaid date and continued to be in possession. Thereafter took place the sale of the house by Sukhdeo Sinsh to the plaintiff-respondent on the 4th July 1963. The appellant paid rent for the month of July and August 1963, to the respondent and stopped the payment thereafter. Therefore, a notice under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given by the respondent to the appellant for vacating the house. The present suit was filed thereafter for his eviction as well as for arrears of rent.

3. The defence of the defendant-appellant was that he was neither a tenant of Sukhdeo Singh nor of the present respondent. He claimed to have taken settlement of it from the Manager of the Court of Wards incharse of the Ramgarh Estate. He further alleged that there was a suit between him and the Rani of Ramaarh which ended in a corn-promise between the two: in other words, the appellant claimed title in himself.

4. Both the Courts below held that the appellant was a tenant and decreed the suit. The appellant then filed a second appeal in this Court. At the hearing of that appeal it was contended on behalf of the appellant that two documents (Exhibits 14 and 14 (a)) which were not registered ones were not admissible in evidence and the findings of the Courts below on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant having been mainly based on these two documents, were vitiated in law. It was further contended that the Courts below had rightly not decided the question of title and the casual observation made by them that the plaintiff had title to the house was not of any avail to him. The learned Judge who heard that second appeal agreed with the contention that Exhibit 14 (a), a document of lease, was not admissible in evidence. Ext. 14 was, however, found to be admissible. Accordingly this Court directed the Court below to leave out of consideration Exhibit 14 (a) and to consider the evidence afresh in order to find out whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed. The matter having gone back on remand the lower appellate Court has considered the evidence on the point and found that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, and, accordingly, decreed the suit, both in respect of eviction as well as in respect of arrears of rent. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised two points before me; firstly that the lower appellate Court has refused to decide the question of title which it was bound to do, the question of title having been raised by the appellant and secondly that the Court below has again relied upon Exhibit 14 (a) for the purpose of proving the tenancy. I must say at the outset that there is no substance in either of these two contentions.

6. On the first point learned Counsel has urged that in every case as soon as a defendant sets UP a plea of title either in himself or in some third Party, irrespective of the fact that the suit is framed as between a landlord and a tenant and such relation is proved the question of title has got to be decided. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Mahabir Ram V/s. Shiva Shankar Prasad, 1968 BLJR 447 = (AIR 1968 Pat 415) (FB); Jiwan Ram V/s.