A tenant is estopped from denying the title of a transferee-landlord who acquired the landlord’s interest.

Ashok Kumar sold the suit property to Kamla Devi by registered sale deed dated 22 August 2006 and, on the same date, became its tenant under a rent agreement.

Kamla Devi later sold the property to Nirmala Devi by registered sale deed dated 4 December 2008.

Nirmala sued for possession and related reliefs, alleging that Ashok had defaulted in rent; she also sought a declaration of ownership.

Ashok denied the sale and tenancy, asserting that the property was ancestral and had fallen to his brother, Birender Singh, in a family partition.

The Trial Court decreed possession, arrears and mesne profits, but declined the declaration of ownership; the First Appellate Court affirmed.

The present second appeal challenged, among other matters, the tenancy, the sale deeds and the treatment of the alleged partition

1. Whether the concurrent findings that Ashok Kumar was a tenant and that Nirmala Devi acquired the landlord’s interest disclosed a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC

2. Whether the alleged ancestral ownership and family partition displaced the documentary evidence of sale and tenancy and defeated Nirmala Devi’s claim for possession

3. Whether possession could be granted notwithstanding the refusal to declare Nirmala Devi the absolute owner

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 limits a second appeal to cases involving a substantial question of law; it does not ordinarily permit reappraisal of concurrent factual findings absent such a question.

Under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a tenant is estopped, during the tenancy, from denying that the landlord had title to the property at the commencement of the tenancy.

The Court also proceeded on the basis that a transferee of the landlord’s interest may seek possession against the tenant.

The defendant’s objection under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act was rejected because it had not been established by evidence

The registered sale deeds and rent agreement supported the finding that Ashok sold the property to Kamla Devi and became her tenant; his widow admitted his signatures on the rent agreement

The evidence did not substantiate the asserted partition or exchange: Ashok’s son lacked personal knowledge and identified no partition documents, while Ashok’s widow admitted that no document recording a partition or exchange existed

The courts below therefore had a sufficient evidentiary basis for finding a tenancy and rejecting the partition defence.

As transferee from Kamla Devi, Nirmala could rely on the established landlord–tenant relationship to seek possession; the absence of a new rent agreement between Nirmala and Ashok did not defeat that claim

The challenges raised no substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC

and dismissed the second appeal, leaving the concurrent decree for possession and other reliefs undisturbed.

The pending application(s) were disposed of accordingly