Estoppel of tenants and of licensee of person in possession
Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with estoppel of tenants and of licensee of person in possession. No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession there of shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given.
Section 116, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 122 Estoppel of tenant and of licensee of person in possession Text carried over almost unchanged 91%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Payal Vision LTD vs Radhika Choudhary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a suit for recovery of possession from a tenant whose tenancy is not protected under the Rent Control Act, a decree for possession can be granted under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the basis of admissions if: (1) The jural relationship of landlord and tenant is clearly admitted, which admission can be inferred from the defendant's acknowledgment of the execution of a lease deed and payment of agreed rent, regardless of the nature of use (residential or commercial) or whether the lease was registered; (2) The termination of tenancy is admitted or proven, either by lapse of time or by service of a valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act; and (3) A tenant is estopped under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act from denying the landlord's title even when the challenge is based on documents anterior to the commencement of the tenancy, provided the tenant has acknowledged the landlord's title by entering into the tenancy agreement.
On this section: Section 116 provides that a tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord from whom they hold the property. The Court extensively analyzed this provision and held that it estops a tenant from denying the landlord's title even when the challenge is based on a document that predates the commencement of the tenancy. The Court applied this to prevent the tenant from claiming that the land vested in the Gram Sabha when the tenancy commenced after the purported vesting order.
-
Rajendra Prasad vs Mishri Lal (dead) Represented by His Lr. Smt. Savitri Devi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a property is owned by co-owners, any co-owner can maintain a suit for eviction of a tenant without joining other co-owners if the other co-owners do not object. The status of a landlord under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act is determined by who receives or is entitled to receive rent, not by formal proof of title through will. Once a final compromise decree has established ownership, the appellants' locus standi to maintain an eviction suit cannot be questioned solely on the ground that the will basis for that ownership was not formally proved with evidence. A tenant is estopped from denying the landlord status of persons succeeding to the rent-collection rights, particularly after receiving explicit notice identifying them as landlords. Deposits of rent in court under Section 30 of the Act are invalid and do not constitute payment or compliance with the Act when made with knowledge that the actual landlords are demanding the rent elsewhere.
On this section: Tenant is estopped from denying landlord's title during continuance of tenancy. Court applied this to hold respondents estopped from questioning appellants' landlord status after admitting Chameli Devi and Bhola Nath as landlords.
-
Tresa Correia vs Chandralekha James Anthony and 2 ORS
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a tenant or person claiming through a tenant takes the sole defense of denying the landlord's title during the continuation of tenancy, such defense is barred under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 122 of Bharatiya Sajshya Adhiniyam, 2023). In such circumstances, the bare denial of the landlord's case without raising any other substantial and valid defense amounts to deemed admission of the jural relationship between landlord and tenant, and the court is entitled to pass judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, without requiring full trial.
On this section: Estoppel of tenant - no tenant or person claiming through tenant can during continuation of tenancy deny title of landlord at beginning of tenancy
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Issue No. 6 was not pressed and it stood decided against the appellants. Equally, the Court found that the Suit was not barred by principle of res judicata . The respondent was found not estopped from challenging the title of Mahant Ramji Dass. 9. The First Appellate Court found that Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'Evidence Act') did not apply to a person who claimed to be a representative of the landlord by assignment by merely purchasing the landlord's interest. The purchaser did not become the landlord entitled to the protection of Section 116 of Evidence Act. It was only if the …
-
… The appellants have therefore not been able to question the derivative title of Azey Bhutiani and Yangzila Bhutiani even to the limited extent permissible under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 33. In Tika Khawas vs. Pashupati Nath <sup>1</sup> this Court held that the expression 'landlord' as used in the Gangtok Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1956 is to be construed in its ordinary sense and there is no warrant for the contention that 'landlord' means 'owner'. …
-
… A sub Division made subsequently was relied upon by the Corporation to support its clearly unreasonable stand. The Writ Court saw through the game and concluded that the Corporation having entered into the possession as a tenant cannot deny a title of the landlord in view of Section 116 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is at this stage, the Corporation budged and the learned Additional Advocate General, who appeared for the Corporation made a representation before the Court on 21.02.2023, which has been recorded by the Court as follows:- " At this stage, Mr.R.Ramanlal, learned Advocate …
Questions about Section 116
What have the courts held on Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Payal Vision LTD vs Radhika Choudhary (20 Sep 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Section 116 provides that a tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord from whom they hold the property. The Court extensively analyzed this provision and held that it estops a tenant from denying the landlord's title even when the challenge is based on a document that predates the commencement of the tenancy. The Court applied this to prevent the tenant from claiming that the land vested in the Gram Sabha when the tenancy commenced after the purported vesting order. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2012 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IEA 116, section 116 IEA, section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Payal Vision LTD vs Radhika Choudhary (20 Sep 2012).
What should I read with Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 122 (Estoppel of tenant and of licensee of person in possession), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 116, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.