Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank

“Once rent is paid after verification of the Will, attornment is established and Section 116 of the Evidence Act estops the tenant from questioning the landlord’s title” – On 27th November 2025, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla delivered a decisive ruling in HP State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Ramesh Kumar Sood (Civil Revision No. 172 of 2025), dismissing a revision petition filed by the petitioner-bank against concurrent eviction orders. The Court reaffirmed that under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a tenant who acknowledges a landlord by tendering rent after verifying the latter’s derivative title through a Will cannot later dispute the landlord’s ownership during the tenancy.

This judgment reiterates a settled position of law in rent control jurisprudence – title disputes are immaterial in eviction proceedings once the landlord-tenant relationship is admitted. The Court upheld eviction on four distinct statutory grounds under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987: unauthorized alterations, bona fide requirement, necessity for reconstruction, and change in user.

“Question of Title is Not Germane in Rent Proceedings Once Tenancy Is Admitted” – Court Emphasizes Limited Jurisdiction of Rent Controller

The Court emphasized at the outset that the tenant-bank had attorned to the respondent-landlord after verifying the Will of the original landlady, Smt. Durga Devi, thereby acknowledging the respondent’s status as landlord. Justice Bipin Chander Negi held:

“Once the payment of rent stands proved, then the tenant/petitioner cannot raise challenge/question the title of the landlord under the HP Urban Rent Control Act.”

Invoking the statutory estoppel under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, the Court declared that the petitioner-bank, having voluntarily paid rent to the respondent after being shown the Will, could not now dispute the respondent’s locus standi to maintain the eviction petition. The Court further highlighted that this attornment had continued from November 2001 to October 2015, with rent receipts produced by the landlord (PW7) evidencing the relationship.

The Court quoted from the Supreme Court's authoritative pronouncement in Bismillah Be (Dead) by LRs. v. Majeed Shah, (2017) 2 SCC 274:

“If the tenant/lessee pays rent to the Assignee/Vendee of the tenanted property then it results in creation of an attornment between the parties which, in turn, deprives the tenant/lessee to challenge the derivative title of an Assignee/Vendee in the proceedings.”

This principle was further reiterated by the Court with reference to Appollo Zipper India Ltd. v. W. Newman and Co. Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 744, which categorically held:

“If the tenant pays rent to the assignee or otherwise accepts the assignee’s title over the demised property, then it results in creation of the attornment which, in turn, deprives the tenant to challenge the derivative title of the landlord.”

Petitioner's Attempt to Impeach Will Rejected: “Rent Controller Not Competent to Decide Title Disputes”

The petitioner-bank had attempted to resist eviction by alleging that the respondent was merely an executor of the Will and not the lawful owner of the premises. However, the Court held this defence to be misconceived and legally untenable in light of the statutory estoppel and the settled position of law that rent control forums are not civil courts and hence cannot adjudicate complex questions of title.

Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Kanaklata Das v. Naba Kumar Das, (2018) 2 SCC 352, the Court underscored:

“In an eviction suit filed by the landlord under the Rent Act, the landlord must prove only two things – the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and a valid ground under the Rent Act. Title to the premises is not germane to such proceedings.”

Further citing Dr. Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal, (1995) 6 SCC 580, the Court explained:

“If the landlord fails to prove title but proves the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and statutory ground for eviction, the suit succeeds. Conversely, if the landlord proves title but not tenancy, the suit fails.”

The respondent's derivative title was based on a Will dated 29.12.2005, and Veena Sood, a third party disputing the Will, had failed in her application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded in the eviction proceedings. That application was dismissed and affirmed in Civil Revision No.108 of 2003, where a coordinate bench of the High Court reiterated that title disputes cannot be decided in rent proceedings.

Concurrent Findings on All Four Statutory Grounds for Eviction Upheld

The High Court also upheld the concurrent factual findings of both the Rent Controller (order dated 18.05.2024) and the Appellate Authority (order dated 05.07.2025), which had granted eviction on four separate and independent grounds, including:

1. Material additions and alterations in the premises without consent.

2. Bona fide requirement of the landlord for personal use.

3. Reconstruction requiring the premises to be vacated.

4. Unauthorized change of user of the demised premises.

All findings were supported by evidence and not disturbed by the revisional court, in line with the limited scope of interference under revisional jurisdiction.

“Creation of Attornment Bars the Tenant from Disputing Derivative Title” – Tenant’s Conduct Establishes Landlord-Tenant Relationship

The Court emphasized the tenant’s own admissions, including pleadings in a related civil suit, where the petitioner-bank expressly stated that rent was being paid to the respondent on the basis of the Will. This conduct, coupled with rent receipts, constituted attornment, thereby bringing the case squarely within the estoppel under Section 116 of the Evidence Act.

Justice Bipin Chander Negi observed:“The petitioner/tenant's continued payment of rent in the case at hand constitutes acknowledgement that the respondent is the landlord. This would result in creation of attornment, as held in the case of Bismillah and Appollo Zipper.”

The Court also found that the tenant had not approached the Court with clean hands, given its contradictory positions in different forums.

Dismissing the civil revision petition, the High Court held that once attornment was established by the tenant after verifying the Will and paying rent, the derivative title of the landlord could not be challenged under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The judgment reinforces a vital doctrine in landlord-tenant disputes – a tenant cannot blow hot and cold simultaneously by first acknowledging the landlord and then questioning his title to avoid eviction.

The Court concluded: “In view thereof, I see no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.”

Date of Decision: 27th November 2025