Hira Lal vs Sarabjit Kamkar and Another

Ross, J.—The short point in this case is whether a tenant is entitled to show that his landlord''s title has expired. The defendants who are respondents took a settlement from Musammat Nandraji Kuer, the widow of Dhunraj Dubey in 1918. In. 1922 their lessor executed a zurpeshgi deed in favour of the present plaintiff after having married a Muhammadan and, therefore, forfeited her interest in her husband''s estate The question is whether the defendants who had been put into possession by her were entitled to, show that her title had ceased. Reference was made to Bigelow on Estoppel, at page 562, where it is said that "it is well-settled that a tenant in possession cannot, even after the expiration of his lease, deny his landlord''s title without (1) actually and openly surrendering possession to him, or (2) being evicted by the title paramount or attorning thereto, or (3) at least giving notice to his landlord that he shall claim under another and a valid title." To the same effect are the decisions in Bhaiganti Bewa v. Himmat Bidyakar 35 Ind. Cas. 7 : 24 C.L.J. 103 : 20 C.W.N. 1332and Devalraju v. Mahamed Jaffer Saheb 19 Ind. Cas. 555 : 36 M. 53. This statement of the law, however, does not contain the whole rule on the subject of the tenant''s estoppel. "Nor can a plea be set up of which the necessary effect is to impeach the title of the person who gave the possession, that ''is, his title at the time of the'' demise, for, subject to this requirement being satisfied the title both before and after that time may be disputed. The latter principled expressed by saying that it is always open to the tenant to show, either as against the person from whom the possession was obtained, or as against any one claiming under him, that the title of such person has expired or become defeated at a period subsequent to the demise" (Foa''s Landlord and Tenant, 6th Edition, page 524). Woodfall in his "Landlord and Tenant" Twenty-first Edition, at page 264, says "The tenant may, however, show that his landlord''s title has expired."

No other point was raised in the appeal which must be dismissed with costs.

This judgment will govern S.A. No. 1177 of 1923 also.