This second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment and for rent. So far as the first relief is concerned, it is admitted that the lease under which the plaintiff claims and on the basis of which he has granted a sub-lease to the defendant has expired. The second relief is however the practical relief with reference to which a decree must be given in favour of the plaintiff, if he is to succeed in his contention of estoppel against his tenant, the defendant. The Courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that there was a determination of the lease in favour of the defendant by the determination of the title of the plaintiff as the lessee from the original owner.

In appeal it is contended that in holding against the estoppel under section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, pleaded by the plaintiff, the Courts below have erred in the view that they have taken that there was a threat of eviction by title paramount from the original owner against the defendant. It is urged that there could be no determination of the lease in favour of the defendant so long as the interest of the plaintiff himself as the defendant’s lessor did not terminate in the manner contemplated by se