The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Sec. 116 of the Indian Evidence Act and the tenant's inability to challenge the landlord's title during the tenancy.

1. The petitioner had filed a petition against Shanker son of Malka Ram Saini (having expired and represented by the present respondents) for eviction from the rented premises on the following grounds :

(i) non-payment of rent;(ii) impaired materially the value and utility of the premises;(iii) premises are unsafe for human habitation.

2. The eviction petition was allowed. However, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition and hence this revision petition. Among the points raised before the Courts below, the following points were also considered.

1. Whether the appellant was a landlord;

2.Whether the possession of the respondent could be denied because of the agreement to sell made in favour of deceased-respondent by the husband of the present petitioner who was the original landlord.

3. Both these points along with the other grounds for eviction were decided in favour of the respondent by the Rent Controller. However, the Appellate Authority reversed the judgment of the Rent Controller on the following grounds:-

"(1) Matadin was the original landlord. He had executed a Will bequeathing the suit premises on the appellant and there was a contest between the parties regarding the validity of the Will in which the learned Appellate Authority found that sitting as a Rent Court, it cannot go into the title between the parties. It also held that the agreement to sell was effected by the power of attorney of Matadin and there was dispute regarding the title between the parties because of the agreement.

4. After discussing the contents regarding the Will and the agreement to sell, the Appellate Authority observed as under:-

"Be that it may, the aforesaid discussion would show that there is a bona fide contest of title between the parties which, I am afraid, cannot be effectively decided in the proceedings under the Act."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent had no right to challenge the title of the landlord and has relied on Sec. 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. The said sections reads as under:-

"116. Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession:-

No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given."

(Emphasis supplied)

6 In the present case Matadin was the original landlord. Petitioner is the widow of Matadin. Though she has claimed through a Will, she was also one of the natural heirs. In the light of the above facts, it will be appropriate to discuss certain judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the case of Smt. Rajinder V/s. Gopal Dass, (1992) 2 Ren CR 498. In the said case it has been held by this Court that tenant cannot challenge validity of Will as the Will can be challenged only by the heirs of testator or by any other person claiming share in the property.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited the case of Joginder Singh V/s. Smt. Jogindero, (1996) 1 JT (SC) 467 : (AIR 1996 SC 1654). It has been held by the Supreme Court in that case that the tenants could not be permitted to deny or dispute the title of the owner. The Supreme Court has relied on its earlier decision in the case of Atyam Veeraju V/s. Pecheti Venkanna, AIR 1966 SC 629.

9. In the case of Joginder Singh V/s. Smt. Jogindero (AIR 1996 SC 1654) (supra) Smt. Jogindero alias Gindo and Smt. Chhindo who are the plaintiffs are the daughters of Smt. Soman and according to the plaintiffs Smt. Soman made a gift of the alleged land in favour of the plaintiffs by a registered gift deed. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 wit