6 per day which later was increased to Rs.
After becoming a direct tenant under the head lessor Krishnamurthy, the appellant stopped paying rent to the respondent w.e.f.
By a numberice dated November 8, 1980 the head lessor Krishnamurthy served a numberice of eviction on the appellant and other sub tenants alleging that there was unlawful subletting by the lessee and that he had decided to terminate the tenancy of the tenant Upadhyaya with the expiry of that month i.e. by the end of December 1980.
The demised premises which is a removable wooden cabin or kiosk located at one companyner of a building belonging to one Krishnamurthy was let out on a rent of Rs.
10, by the respondent P. Jagadish, son of the original tenant P.R.N. Upadhyaya on March 9, 1977.
From the Judgment and order dated 21.8.1986 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.R.P. No.
April 1, 1980.
There is numbermaterial point of fact which is number in dispute.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The First Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad by order dated November 3, 1982 disallowed the application on the ground that the respondent number being the lessor had numberlocus standi to initiate the proceedings for eviction.
Admittedly, the main premises i.e. the building was demised by Krishnamurthy to the said P.R.N. Upadhyaya in the year 1972 and in companyrse of time he had sublet different portions of the premises to different persons.
2223 of 1987.
K. Ganguli and A. Mariarputham for the Appellant.
The question is whether the appellant was estopped from denying the title of the lessor under s. 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872 despite the fact that there was threat of eviction by the owner of the demised premises one Krishnamurthy i.e. the person having title paramount.
Evidently, the appellant had paid rent to the respondent upto March 31, 1980.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. This appeal by special leave brought from the judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated August 21, 1986 raises a question of general importance.
Narasimhulu for the Respondent.
That decision of his has been upheld by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by the judgment under appeal.
On March 13, 1981 the respondent asserting to be the lessor companymenced proceedings for eviction of the appellant from the demised premises under s. 10 2 i and vi and 10 3 b iii of the Act i.e. On the ground that the appellant was in wilful default in payment of rent, that there was denial of title on his part and for his bona fide requirement.
1518 of 1985.
On appeal, the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad by judgment dated April 29, 1985 reversed the order of the learned Rent Controller and directed the eviction of the appellant under s. 10 2 i and holding that the premises in question was a building within s. 2 iii of the Act and that in view of the denial of his title as well as admitted number payment of rent, the appellant was estopped from denying the title.
The High Court has upheld the judgment of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court dated April 29, 1985 directing the eviction of the appellant from the demised premises under s. 10 2 vi of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Lease, Rent Eviction Control Act, 1960.
Thereupon, the appellant on December 4, 1980 was companystrained to attorn in favour of the original lessor Krishnamurthy agreeing to pay him a rent of Rs.300 per month.
