Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title or Seek Injunction After Lease Expiry: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a judgment that reaffirms the age-old principle of estoppel under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Justice Deepak Gupta held that once a tenant enters into possession under a landlord, he cannot deny the landlord’s title either during the subsistence of tenancy or even after expiry of the lease, unless he has lawfully surrendered possession. The Court categorically stated that permanent injunction, being an equitable relief, cannot be granted to protect illegal or unauthorized possession.

“Equitable Relief Cannot Be Invoked to Protect Unlawful Possession”

The case arose from a suit filed by Juma Khan seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the Municipal Committee, Ferozepur Jhirka, over agricultural land measuring 55 kanal 09 marla. Khan argued that he was in possession both as a tenant and as a biswedar or co-sharer of shamlat land. He further claimed that since the Haryana Municipal Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1974 had been declared unconstitutional in the Full Bench ruling of Rajinder Prashad v. State of Haryana, AIR 1980 P&H 37, the Municipal Committee had no authority to interfere with his possession or to lease the land to others.

The Municipal Committee, however, pointed out that Khan had taken the land on lease through public auction, that the lease period had expired, and that under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, he was estopped from disputing the landlord’s rights. The trial court accepted this reasoning and dismissed the suit on 9 June 1993. But the first appellate court reversed the decree on 10 February 1994, holding that the Committee had no valid title. This led to the present second appeal before the High Court.

“Striking Down of Statute Does Not Vest Ownership in Tenants”

Justice Deepak Gupta clarified the effect of the 1980 Full Bench decision in Rajinder Prashad. He observed that while the 1974 Act had been held unconstitutional, this did not automatically confer ownership or possession rights upon tenants. “Dispute over vesting may exist between the Gram Panchayat and the Municipal Committee, but the tenant cannot use that declaration to deny the landlord’s authority. He has no locus to set up such a plea,” the Court noted.

“Biswedar Claim Rejected for Want of Proof”

The plaintiff’s alternative plea of being a co-sharer in shamlat land also failed. The Court recorded that no documentary evidence had been produced to support his alleged biswedar status. Both the trial court and the appellate court had concurred on this factual finding. Justice Gupta reiterated that “equitable relief of injunction cannot be granted without legal entitlement or proof of ownership.”

“Revenue Records and Auction Entries Prove Tenancy – Estoppel Applies”

The Court relied heavily on documents such as Exhibit D8, the auction record dated 7 July 1982, and Exhibit D10, a Rapat Roznamcha entry for 1982–83. These records clearly established that Juma Khan had taken the land on lease from the Municipal Committee through public auction. The High Court emphasized: “Once tenancy is admitted, the tenant cannot turn around to deny the landlord’s title. Section 116 of the Evidence Act squarely estops such a challenge.”

The Court concluded that after expiry of the lease, the plaintiff’s possession was unlawful and could not be shielded by a decree of injunction.

Allowing the appeal, Justice Deepak Gupta set aside the appellate court’s judgment dated 10 February 1994 and restored the trial court’s decree of 9 June 1993, which had dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. The judgment underscores the settled law that injunction cannot be used to protect unauthorized possession and that a tenant is forever bound by estoppel against denying the title of the landlord from whom he derived possession.

Date of Decision: 4 September 2025