A tenant who unequivocally claims ownership forfeits tenancy protection and becomes liable to eviction under general law.

The appellant, Kishan Kumar, was inducted as a tenant by Ashok Kumar in March 1995 in respect of the suit property at a monthly rent initially fixed at ₹1,500, which was subsequently increased. Kishan Kumar claimed that Ashok Kumar later executed an Agreement to Sell dated 4 February 2003 in his favour for ₹1,40,000, against which ₹90,000 was allegedly paid. His suit for specific performance was dismissed, and the dismissal was affirmed in appeal; no further appeal was preferred.

Ashok Kumar had, meanwhile, executed an Agreement to Sell, GPA, SPA and Will dated 1 April 2003 in favour of Ravi Kant Bansal, who subsequently executed an Agreement to Sell, GPA and registered Will dated 27 May 2005 in favour of Suresh Kumar. Suresh Kumar instituted a suit for possession, permanent injunction, arrears of rent and mesne profits after issuing a notice dated 14 May 2009 terminating the tenancy. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the documents relied upon by Suresh Kumar did not confer absolute ownership. The First Appellate Court reversed that decision and decreed possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits in favour of Suresh Kumar. Kishan Kumar challenged that decree in the present second appeal.

1. Whether Suresh Kumar, despite not holding a conventional sale deed or having been placed in physical possession, possessed a better possessory or proprietary right enabling him to maintain a suit for possession against Kishan Kumar.

2. Whether the GPA executed in favour of Ravi Kant Bansal ceased to operate upon the death of Ashok Kumar, thereby extinguishing the rights subsequently claimed by Suresh Kumar.

3. Whether formal attornment by Kishan Kumar was necessary to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant or to confer upon Suresh Kumar the right to seek eviction.

4. Whether Kishan Kumar’s assertion of ownership repudiated his status as a tenant and resulted in forfeiture of the tenancy under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

5. Whether the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was barred under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 because the rent was allegedly below ₹3,500 per month.

The Court applied Sections 201 and 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, holding that an agency coupled with an interest, created for valuable consideration, is not terminated merely by the death of the principal; this principle was drawn from Seth Loon Karan Sethiya v. Ivan E. John and P. Seshareddy (D) v. State of Karnataka.

It relied on the principle that a transferee or person having a better possessory title may maintain an eviction action even without perfect ownership, as reflected in Swadesh Ranjan Sinha v. Haradeb Banerjee.

Attornment is not the source of the transferee’s title and is not indispensable for maintaining an eviction action under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Under Section 111(g)(2) of the Transfer of Property Act, a lessee’s clear and unequivocal repudiation of the landlord’s title or of his own status as tenant, followed by notice of determination, may result in forfeiture of the lease; the Court relied on Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan v. Municipal Board of Sitapur, Kundan Mal v. Gurudutta, Majati Subbarao v. P.V.K. Krishna Rao, and Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand.

The Court further relied on M/s Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF) for the proposition that institution of an eviction suit may itself operate as notice to quit.

The Court held that Kishan Kumar’s specific-performance claim had finally failed, and therefore his status remained that of a tenant rather than an owner.

Ashok Kumar’s transaction with Ravi Kant Bansal and the latter’s subsequent transaction with Suresh Kumar created enforceable proprietary and possessory rights inter se, notwithstanding the absence of a conventional sale deed. These rights gave Suresh Kumar a better claim to possession than Kishan Kumar.

The GPA was treated as an agency coupled with an interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act and was therefore not extinguished by Ashok Kumar’s death.

Physical delivery of possession and formal attornment were held unnecessary because the legal right to possession had passed through the chain of transactions, and attornment merely informs the tenant to whom rent is payable.

Further, Kishan Kumar had unequivocally asserted ownership and denied the title of Suresh Kumar and the previous owners. This repudiation forfeited his tenancy under Section 111(g), rendering him an unauthorised occupant after termination notice. Having denied the tenancy and claimed independent ownership, he could not simultaneously invoke the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act; consequently, the civil suit for possession was maintainable irrespective of the disputed rent amount.

The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, and the decree for possession, permanent injunction, arrears of rent, interest and mesne profits passed by the First Appellate Court was upheld.