A tenant is estopped from challenging the validity of the sale deed executed by the landlord in favor of a third party in a suit filed by the third party.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 3-10-1998 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for stay of proceedings in suit No. 3 of 1989 and the order of respondent No. 1 dated 30-10-1998, dismissing the revision against the said order.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that Shankar Lal, father of the petitioners, was inducted as a tenant in building No. 34-D, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad by Mrs. Soonama Booman Sapporjee. After her death her rights were devolved upon her daughter Smt. Daulat Den Shah Lahawalla. She sent a composite notice demanding arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy of Shankar Lal. As the tenant failed to comply with the notice, she filed suit No. 420 of 1982 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Allahabad for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages. During the pendency of the suit Smt. Daulat Den Shah Lahawalla executed a sale deed in respect of the property in question in favour of M. K. Somrajan, respondent No. 3, Shankar Lal filed an application before the Court on 23-9-1985 stating that as the erstwhile owner has sold the property to respondent No. 3, the suit should be dismissed. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by Smt. Daulat Den Shah Lahawalla on 24-9-1985.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 gave a notice to Shankar Lal to pay arrears of rent which was due as against him from 6-12-1982 and terminated his tenancy. As Shankar Lal did not pay arrears of rent nor vacated the premises in question, he filed suit No. 3 of 1989 against Shankar Lal for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages. Shankar Lal died during the pendency of the suit on 24-2-1989 and the petitioners were substituted as his heirs and legal representatives. The petitioners filed written statement stating that the premises No. 34-D/74, Nawab Yusuf Road is built upon Nazul plot No. 58-A, Civil Station. The period of lease has expired on 2-4-1968. The erstwhile owner had no right to execute any sale deed after the expiry of period of lease. The sale deed executed by the erstwhile owner without permission of the Government was illegal and void. The District Magistrate passed an order on 21-2-1986 declaring the sale deed in favour of respondent No. 3 as null and void. It was further alleged that the lease holders had granted a sub lease in favour of Shankar Lal and, in fact, he had built the constructions.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed Writ Petition No. 5772 of 1986 against the order of the District Magistrate dated 21-2-1986, whereby he had declared the sale deed, executed in his favour as null and void. This Court admitted the writ petition and stayed the operation of the order of the Collector, Allahabad dated 21-2-1986 till further orders. The stay order is still continuing. The petitioners filed an application for stay of the proceedings of the suit till the writ petition is decided. The application has been rejected by the Judge, Small Causes Court vide order dated 3-10-1988. This order has been affirmed in revision by respondent No. 1 on 30-10-1988.

( 5 ) THE main thrust of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit filed by respondent No. 3 is not maintainable after the Collector declared the sale deed as null and void by his order dated 21-2-1986 and the Court should have stayed the proceedings in the suit till the rights of respondent No. 3 are finally determined in the writ petition filed by him.

( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioners were let out the premises in question by erstwhile owners and the tenant never questioned the rights of the landlady on the basis of the contract of tenancy. The previous landlady had filed the suit in the year 1982 and in that suit it was not denied that she was landlady by the property in question. Shankar Lal, father of the petitioners in that suit had filed application to dismiss the suit on the ground that she had executed the sale deed in favour of respondent No. 3.