Summary
Tenants inducted by the appellants could not belatedly amend their defence to deny the landlords’ original title after failing specifically to deny ownership and expressly admitting it in evidence. Section 116 estoppel barred the proposed plea; rejection of amendment was restored.
Issues
- Whether tenants could introduce a late denial of their inducting landlords’ title by amendment.
Provisions considered
- Section 116, Indian Evidence Act, 1872A tenant continuing in possession could not deny the inducting landlord’s title at the tenancy’s inception. (¶ 10–16)
- Order VIII Rules 3 and 5, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Failure specifically to traverse the ownership allegation amounted to admission, reinforced by express testimony here. (¶ 7–9)
Held
- The respondents admitted the lease and induction by the appellants, and their original general denial did not specifically contest ownership. Their later evidence expressly acknowledged it. (¶ 7–9)
- The proposed denial was barred by tenant estoppel and was not mere elaboration of an existing defence. Authorities on GPA conveyances and permissive amendment did not address or displace Section 116 in these circumstances. (¶ 10–16)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court amendment order set aside and Rent Controller’s rejection restored. No costs; eviction merits not finally decided by this order.