R. Dorairajan vs Saminathan

Suryamurthy, J.—This civil revision petition is by the plaintiff whose suit for recovery of arrears of rent was decreed for Rs. 492 with proportionate costs by the learned District Munsif of Pattukottai but modified an appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tanjore, who gave a decree only for Rs. 98.31 with proportionate costs throughout. The respondent Saminathan was let into possession of a building belonging to the Chatram Department of Tanjore District by the revision petitioner Dorairajan, who had taken the same on lease. The rent agreed upon originally was Rs. 22. Subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs. 30 after the installation of electric lights and other fittings. The Chatram department, however, filed a petition for eviction against both the revision petitioner and the respondent and obtained an order for eviction on 9th May 1969. The plaintiff claimed arrears of rent from the defendant for the period from 1st January 1969 to 1st February 1971, at the rate of Rs. 30 per mensem. The plea of the defendant was that with effect from 9th May 1969, he is not liable to pay any rent. This plea has been upheld by the Principal Subordinate Judge of Tanjore and that is why he has modified the decree of the trial court. There is no dispute about the fact that the building belongs to the Chatram department. It is also not disputed that the defendant took this building on lease from the plaintiff and that the Chatram department has obtained an order for eviction on 9th May 1969 from the Rent Controller. In the circumstances the tenant is entitled to plead that he has been evicted by the true owner and the plaintiff, as landlord, cannot rely on the law of estoppel incorporated in S. 116 of the Evidence Act as operating against the defendant. It has been held in Alaga Pillai v. Ramaswami Thevan AIR 1926 Mad. 187 by a Bench of this court that--

The eviction need not be by actual dispossession of the tenant. If the true owner is armed with a legal process for eviction which cannot be lawfully resisted even though the tenant is not put out of possession the threat to put him out of possession amounts in law to eviction.

Therefore, it was held that the Rule of Estoppel does not operate against the tenant. In Jagannath Iyengar v. Mariappa Chettiar AIR 1958-1-M.L.J. 406 Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. has held that where the lessor and the lessee received notice from the true owner that the usufructuary mortgage under which the lessor was in possession had been declared invalid by a court, the plea of estoppel under S. 116 of the Evidence Act, would not enure after such notice; but that the lessee would be liable to pay the rent to the lessor till they received the notice from the true owner.

Following the ratio of these decision I find that the tenant is not liable to pay rent to the landlord with effect from 9th May 1969. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge granting a decree for rent for the period prior to 9th May 1969 is confirmed, and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.