Short Note : 1. It is true that section 116 of the Evidence Act does create an estoppel against a tenant to raise a finger to the title of his landlord during continuance of the lease and no title in the third person can be set up unless there is eviction of the tenant or surrender of the premises to the landlord. But there are certain exceptions, when there is a threat of eviction by a third person, who is admittedly the paramount title holder, and where the person inducting the tenants himself was not in possession of the property in his own rights, in such circumstances, even if the tenant had been praying rent to the person, who let him in actual possession of the premises, can raise a defence that the paramount title-holder was in reality the landlord and since the amount of rent for the period in question had been paid by him to the real landlord he could not be made to pay rent to a person who had admittedly no right, title or interest at any time before or after the commencement of the tenancy because such a person at the most could be recognised or treated as one representing the landlord for the limited purposes of collection and recovery of rent. Revision dismissed.