2016 (8) TMI 1595 - HC - Indian Laws

Doctrine of Estoppel - Who is real landlord? - eviction suit - whether the previous statement made by the petitioner that Mrs. Aysha Moosa Haji was not his landlady but in fact Mr. Mohammad Shafi was his landlord can be read against the petitioner in the present case where he has denied Mr. Mohammad Shafi as being his landlord or not? - HELD THAT - Estoppel is a collective name given to a group of legal doctrines whereby a person is prevented from making assertions that are contradictory to their prior position on certain matters before the court; thereby the person is said to be estopped . Judicial estoppel is said to be parcel of doctrine of equitable estoppel. Judicial estoppel binds a party to his/her previous judicial declaration such as allegations contained in a lawsuit complaint written statement or testimony given under oath. The object of judicial estoppel is to preserve the integrity of the courts and to uphold the sanctity of the oath. Under judicial estoppel a party to a litigation cannot be permitted to take contradictory stand and to change its position from the previous litigation to the subsequent one. For a litigant cannot be permitted to take a court out for a ride by his shifting stand. Admittedly in the present case the petitioner has changed his position from the previous suit vis- -vis the issue as to who is the landlord? In the previous suit the petitioner claimed that Mr. Mohammad Shafi is his landlord; in the subsequent suit filed by Mr. Mohammad Shafi the petitioner claims that Mr. Shafi is not his landlord. Obviously the petitioner cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold simultaneously. He cannot change his position under the doctrine of Judicial Estoppel. Litigants like the petitioner cannot be allowed to pull the wool over the eyes of the court. Considering the definition of landlord the petitioner cannot claim that Mr. Shafi is not his landlord. Since the rent has been paid to Mr. Shafi he is deemed to be the landlord under the Act. This court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to legality of order dated 27.06.2011 dismissing revision petition under Section 46(2) of Karnataka Rent Act, denial of relationship between petitioner and plaintiff as landlord and tenant, application under Section 43 of the Act, change in petitioner's position regarding landlord, application of doctrine of Judicial Estoppel, definition of "landlord" under Section 3(e) of the Act.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the order dismissing his revision petition under Section 46(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act. The petitioner, a tenant, denied the relationship with the plaintiff as landlord and claimed the plaintiff's mother was his landlady. The petitioner filed an application under Section 43 of the Act to stay proceedings until the plaintiff proved title. However, the application was dismissed, leading to the present challenge.

2. The petitioner's counsel contended that the petitioner's previous admission in a different suit should not be used against him in the present case. The petitioner clarified his position in the written statement, alleging that he was misled into a lease agreement by the plaintiff. The counsel argued that the trial court should have awaited proof of title before proceeding further.

3. The court deliberated on the concept of Judicial Estoppel, which prevents litigants from taking contradictory stands in different proceedings. The court cited the conditions for applying Judicial Estoppel, emphasizing the need to maintain consistency in legal assertions to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

4. The court analyzed the definition of "landlord" under Section 3(e) of the Act, which includes a person entitled to receive rent, whether on their own behalf or on behalf of others. The petitioner's belief that the plaintiff was acting on behalf of the true landlord was deemed insufficient to deny the landlord-tenant relationship.

5. The court concluded that the petitioner's change in position regarding the landlord was not permissible under the doctrine of Judicial Estoppel. The court emphasized the importance of consistency in legal assertions and rejected the petitioner's argument that the plaintiff was not his landlord based on payment of rent.

6. Ultimately, the court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and dismissed the petition for lacking merit. The judgment underscores the significance of maintaining consistency in legal positions and upholding the sanctity of legal proceedings to prevent abuse of the judicial process.