Tenant Admitting Relationship and Signatures on Lease Deed is Estopped From Challenging Landlord’s Title

The Respondent (Plaintiff), claiming ownership of property in Darya Ganj via a Gift Deed, filed a suit for possession, arrears of rent, and mesne profits against the Appellant (Defendant).

The Respondent alleged the Appellant was inducted as a tenant on 01.08.2013 at a monthly rent of Rs. 16,000/- via a Lease Deed.

The Appellant defaulted on rent from 01.07.2016 and failed to vacate despite a termination notice dated 20.02.2017.

The Appellant contested the suit, claiming her husband had "purchased" or "mortgaged" the property from a third party, Mohd. Asad Khan, and alleged the Lease Deed signatures were obtained by fraud.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Respondent on 19.03.2026.

1. Whether a landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties based on the Lease Deed dated 02.08.2013.

2. Whether the Appellant was estopped from challenging the Respondent's title under the law of evidence.

3. Whether the unregistered Mortgage Deed propounded by the Appellant created any valid legal right over the Suit Property.

Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 122 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), which establishes the principle of estoppel, preventing a tenant from denying the landlord's title at the beginning of the tenancy.

Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, which mandate that a mortgage of immovable property exceeding Rs. 100 must be registered to be admissible as evidence or to affect the property.

The principle that a Plaintiff must prove their case but may rely on the clear admissions of the Defendant under the Indian Evidence Act.

The Court found that the Appellant, during cross-examination, unequivocally admitted that the Respondent was the landlord/owner and had handed over physical possession to her on 01.08.2013.

While the Appellant claimed her signatures on the Lease Deed were obtained for an electricity connection, the Court dismissed this as a contradictory and unproven plea of fraud.

Because the Appellant admitted entering the property through the Respondent, Section 122 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, barred her from challenging his title.

Regarding the Appellant’s defense of a prior mortgage, the Court noted the document was: (a) unregistered and thus legally void; (b) pertained to a different property (Property No. 534) rather than the Suit Property; and (c) was executed in 2015, two years after the tenancy began.

The Appeal was dismissed, upholding the decree for possession, arrears of rent at Rs. 16,000/- per month (from 01.07.2016 to 16.03.2017), and mesne profits at Rs. 17,000/- per month (from 17.03.2017) with 7% interest.