AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 3569 ::2006 AIR SCW 1073 ::2006 (2) AIR Jhar R 305 ::2006 (2) Supreme 437 ::(2006) 1 WLC(SC)CVL 658 ::2006 (4) Civ LJ 184 ::(2006) 1 All RentCas 870 ::(2006) 2 Pat LJR 258 ::2006 (3) SCC 91 ::(2006) 2 RecCivR 38 ::(2006) 2 Scale 471 ::2006 (2) All CJ 985 ::(2006) 1 CurCC 273 ::(2006) 3 AllMR 224 (SC) ::2006 (3) Andh LD 1 ::2006 (2) Cal HN 143 ::2006 (2) All WC 1591 ::2006 (63) All LR 498 ::2006 (3) Bom CR 116 ::2006 (1) HRR 437 ::2006 HRR 1 437 ::2006 (2) ICC 565 ::(2006) 2 CTC 427 (SC) ::2006 (2) MPLJ 149 ::2006 (2) Mah LJ 465 ::(2006) 3 JLJR 10 ::(2006) 3 JCR 159 (SC) ::2006 (1) RenCR 253 ::(2006) 1 RentLR 493 ::2006 (3) SCJ 1 ::(2006) 3 LandLR 36 ::(2006) 2 Supreme 437 ::(2006) 40 AllIndCas 719 (SC) ::2006 (40) AllIndCas 719 ::2006 (4) SRJ 514

Supreme Court Of India

(From : 2001 (3) Bom CR 263)

Hon'ble Judge(s): Arijit Pasayat, Tarun Chatterjee , JJ

Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.116— Estoppel 'Of licensee of person in possession' - Stress is on 'possession' of licensor - His 'title' is not relevant for applicability of provisions of S. 116 - Order refusing to grant possession to licensor by erroneously laying stress on title of licensor, not proper. 2001 (3) Bom CR 263, Reversed. The principle of estoppel arising from the contract of tenancy is based upon a healthy and salutory principle of law and justice that a tenant who could not have got possession but for his contract of tenancy admitting the right of the landlord should not be allowed to launch his landlord in some inequitable situation taking undue advantage of the possession that he got and any probable defect in the title of his landlord. It is on account of such a contract of tenancy and as a result of the tenant's entry into possession on the admission of the landlord's title that the principle of estoppel is attracted. S. 116 enumerates the principle of estoppel which is merely an extension of the principle that no person is allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. Obviously, the stress is on the possession of the person who is in possession of the immovable property. Unfortunately, in instant case, the Court has not addressed itself to this question which was the core question. In the instant case the Division Ben....