Introduction
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, is a good-sized reform in India’s felony framework regarding proof. It was enacted as a part of a bigger attempt to modernise and update the century-old Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The new regulation aims to simplify, make clear, and update evidentiary policies to fit present-day realities, while still keeping the core concepts of equity, justice, and prison certainty.
One of the vital concepts retained inside the new regulation is that of estoppel. In simple terms, estoppel is a legal rule that forestalls a person from denying or contradicting something they’ve already normal as genuine, especially whilst any other person has relied on that representation. This precept is crucial in ensuring consistency and honesty in criminal relationships, mainly in property matters.
Section 122 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, specifically deals with estoppel within the context of tenancy and licences over immovable property. This provision safeguards landlords and licensors from unfair disputes over possession or ownership when they have legally granted tenancy or a licence.
Text of Section 122 and Its Plain Meaning
The section reads:
“No tenant of immovable assets, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, in the course of the continuance of the tenancy or any time thereafter, be permitted to disclaim that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who got here upon any immovable belongings by using the licence of the person in ownership thereof shall be accredited to disclaim that such man or woman had a name to such ownership on the time while such licence changed into given.”
In undeniable phrases, Section 122 says two things:
- If you’re a tenant of assets (or claiming under a tenant), you can not say that your landlord had no proper possession at the start of the tenancy. This limit applies both at the same time as you’re a tenant and even after the tenancy ends.
- If you occupy belongings under a licence given by a person in ownership, you can not deny that this person had the right to own the assets when they gave you the licence.
Key Terms Explained
To recognise this phase, it’s crucial to make sure criminal phrases:
- Tenant: A character who has been given the proper to occupy and use immovable property in return for rent or another form of consideration.
- Immovable Property: Land and things connected to it, along with homes, timber, and everlasting structures.
- Landlord: The owner or lawful possessor who grants tenancy to a tenant.
- Licensee: A person who’s approved to use some other person’s assets without creating any tenancy or possession rights.
- Title: Legal possession or proper to own the property.
- Possession: Physical control over assets, whether or not one is the legal proprietor.
Scope of the Provision
Section 122 applies to 2 relationships:
- Landlord–Tenant Relationship
- Once a tenancy begins, the tenant is legally bound to accept that the owner had the proper to offer them possession of the premises. They can’t later claim that the owner had no possession or name whilst the tenancy began.
- Licensor–Licensee Relationship
- Similarly, if a person is allowed to apply for property through a licence, they cannot later deny that the person who gave them that licence had the proper to own the belongings at the time.
This provision applies throughout the tenancy or licence or even after it ends. This means that a tenant or licensee can’t exchange their position and assign the unique title of the owner or licensor in any felony dispute after the relationship ends.
Why the Law Prevents Such Denial
The principle behind Section 122 is based totally on equity and consistency. When a tenant or licensee accepts the proper of the landlord or licensor at the beginning of the settlement, they can not later contradict that recognition.
If such a denial has been allowed:
- Landlords and licensors could face infinite disputes over the name.
- Property relationships might become volatile.
- Tenants and licensees should not unfairly take gain in their possession to say ownership.
By implementing estoppel, the regulation ensures acceptance as true and balance in property dealings.
Practical Examples
Example 1 – Tenant Denying Landlord’s Title
Suppose Mr. A rents a shop from Mr. B. After years, Mr. A claims that Mr. B has no right to be the rightful proprietor of the store. Under Section 122, Mr. A can’t make this claim because whilst the tenancy commenced, he generic Mr. B as his landlord.
Example 2 – Licensee Denying Licensor’s Possession
Ms. C is authorised to use Mr. D to apply for a plot of land for hosting activities under a licence agreement. After a few months, Ms. C claims that Mr. D had no proper to give her that licence. Under Section 122, this claim is barred because she has a universal Mr. D’s right to possess the land when the licence becomes granted.
Connection to Previous Law
Section 122 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, closely resembles Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The wording is equal, meaning that the set-up interpretations under the vintage regulation hold to apply. The foremost reason for keeping this section is to preserve criminal reality while updating the Evidence Act for current utility.
Judicial Interpretation
Indian courts have constantly upheld the precept that tenants and licensees are estopped from difficult the title in their landlord or licensor.
For instance, in several choices, courts have ruled that:
- Even if the landlord’s ownership is later observed to be defective, the tenant can not enhance this defence whilst in possession or after vacating, until there’s a legally known exception.
- This estoppel applies similarly to those claiming through the tenant, which includes sub-tenants or heirs.
The courts emphasise that the guideline exists to prevent misuse of ownership granted in a suitable religion.
Exceptions to the Rule
Although Section 122 creates a sturdy bar against denial of title, there are certain exceptions:
- End of Landlord’s Title
- If the owner’s name has legally ended—for instance, if the belongings have been sold or possession transferred—after the tenancy started, the tenant might also rely on that truth in felony complaints.
- Fraud or Misrepresentation
- If the tenancy or licence changed into obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion, the tenant or licensee might also rescind the arrangement.
- Statutory Rights
- In a few cases, special legal guidelines may override the estoppel principle, which include hire management laws or authorities acquisition statutes.
Burden of Proof
The responsibility of proving that an exception applies commonly lies with the tenant or licensee. They need to show valid criminal grounds for denying the owner’s or licensor’s identity, regardless of the rule of thumb of estoppel.
Significance in Property Law
Section 122 performs a vital function in:
- Protecting property proprietors and lawful possessors from false claims.
- Maintaining consideration in contractual relationships.
- Preventing prolonged and useless litigation.
It reinforces the idea that criminal relationships have to be based on honesty and mutual appreciation. When a person accepts the authority of someone other to supply possession, they can’t later contradict that authority purely for non-public advantage.
Read also: BSA Section 115
Conclusion
Section 122 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 preserves a vital and time-examined principle of assets law. It prevents tenants and licensees from denying the title or proper of the individual who granted them ownership on the outset. By doing so, it promotes stability, reduces disputes, and ensures that agreements are honoured in both spirit and letter.
For landlords, licensors, tenants, and licensees alike, expertise in this provision is critical. It reminds us that the law values true religion, equity, and consistency in dealings. Once possession has been granted on agreed phrases, it can not later be undermined with the aid of denying the very authority on which it became primarily based.
