The principle of estoppel enshrined in Section 116 of the Evidence Act is not the only kind of estoppel which may arise between a landlord and his tenant.

( 1 ) THIS petition arises out of a suit filed by respondent No. 3 Kumari Chhaya Gupta for the ejectment of the petitioner from a house No. 7/3 Shambhoo Barracks, Allahabad. The suit was decreed by the trial court, in the Revision filed by the petitioner, the decree of the trial court has been affirmed by the learned District Judge by an order dated 26-8-1976. This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid decree and order.

( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, the plaint case was that one Gopi Nath Agrawal was the landlord of the premises in question and the petitioner was his tenant. By means of a sale deed dated 3-1-1972 the plaintiff purchased the accommodation. On the purchase of the property, both the transferor and transferee served notices on the defendant informing him of the transfer the transferee also demanding arrears of rent. The defendant denied the title of the transferee (the plaintiff) in a written reply sent to her. Thereupon, the plaintiff served a notice dated 23-4-1973 terminating the tenancy of the defendant. The defendant neither paid the arrears of rent, nor vacated the accommodation, and hence the suit.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the petitioner on a variety of grounds. Briefly, the defence was that originally, one Shambhoo Lal Jain was the owner of the property. Shambhoo Lal Jain was succeeded by his widow Shrimati Rajul Devi and son Dhoom Chand. One Mainavati Jain held a decree for money against Dhoom Chand. In execution of her decree, Mainawati Jain purchased the share of Dhoom Chand in the property in dispute, though she was not able to get possession over the property through Court as required under the law. No sale certificate was issued to her by the Executing Court. Mainawati Jain, therefore, had no right to transfer the property. The purported transfer by sale made by Mainawati Jain in favour of Gopi Nath Agrawal on 15-7-79 was without any legal effect. Title to the house, therefore, did not pass to Gopi Nath Agrawal. However, on account of acts of fraud and misrepresentation practised by Gopi Nath Agrawal, the defendant was made to believe that Gopi Nath Agrawal was the sole landlord and consequently the defendant began to pay the entire rent to Gopi Nath Agrawal from the date of the said transfer. Gopi Nath Agrawal legally did not become the full owner of the properly as Rajul Devi had half share in the property, in any case. When, therefore, the plaintiff sent a notice to the defendant after the sale deed in her favour, the defendant asked the plaintiff to prove her title, but she failed to do so. Shrimati Rajul Devi was a necessary party to the suit. The suit was bad for her non-joinder. The plaintiff had no right to maintain the suit, as she had failed to satisfy the defendant that she was the original owner and landlady.

( 4 ) HAVING regard to the nature of the suit, it was tried as a small cause by the learned Judge Small cause Court, Allahabad. The property in dispute is situate in the Cantonment, Allahabad. The suit for ejectment is regulated by the provisions of U. P. Act No. III of 1947 in view of the notification issued by the Central Government on 3-4-72 making the provisions of U. P. Act No. III of 1947 applicable to the Cantonments in Uttar Pradesh. One of the grounds upon which the suit for ejectment could be filed was denial of the title of the landlord (see Section 3 (f) of U. P. Act No. III of 1947 ).

( 5 ) THE trial court framed the necessary issues and upon a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, reached the following conclusions:-

1) The defendant had, after the transfer of the property in favour of Gopi Nath Agrawal, attorned to him throughout the period during which Gopi Nath Agrawal was the owner of the house in dispute. The defendant recognised him as the sole landlord and paid to him alone the whole of the rent due in respect of the said house; 2) The defendant had clearly and categorically denied the title of the plaintiff.

( 6 ) ON