A tenant’s clear repudiation of tenancy and assertion of ownership forfeits statutory rent-control protection.

Mst. Sahar Bano purchased property bearing Municipal No. 6859, Gali No. 18, Ahata Kidara, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, through a registered Sale Deed dated 27 January 1992.

The Sale Deed recorded Sh. Allah Rakkha as a tenant in the first-floor premises at a monthly rent of Rs.20.

Upon Sahar Bano’s death, the Respondents claimed ownership as her legal heirs and alleged that the Appellant, son and successor of Allah Rakkha, had failed to pay rent.

The Appellant admitted the earlier tenancy but denied attornment to Sahar Bano or the Respondents and claimed that, as no one had collected rent or asserted ownership for several years, he had become owner of the premises.

The Civil Judge decreed possession, arrears of rent at Rs.20 per month from 01 June 2019 to 31 December 2021 with 9% interest, and mesne profits at Rs.1,000 per month from 01 January 2022 until delivery of possession.

The First Appellate Court affirmed the decree. The Appellant thereafter filed the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC.

1. Whether the Appellant’s clear denial of the Respondents’ title and assertion of ownership amounted to repudiation and forfeiture of the tenancy under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, thereby making the suit maintainable before the civil court?

2. Whether the suit was barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956?

3. Whether the courts below committed a jurisdictional or legal error by deciding interconnected issues together, contrary to Order XX Rule 5 CPC?

4. Whether the First Appellate Court ought to have allowed the Appellant’s application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to produce old rent receipts?

5. Whether the award of mesne profits at Rs.1,000 per month lacked an evidentiary basis?

6. Whether the appeal raised any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC?

The Court applied Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, under which a lease may be forfeited where the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up title in a third person or claiming title in himself, provided the lessor gives notice of the intention to determine the lease.

The repudiation must be clear, unequivocal, and made to the knowledge of the landlord; a tenant cannot approbate and reprobate by denying the landlord’s title and later claiming protection as a tenant.

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 for these principles.

It further applied the principle that the protection of rent-control legislation cannot be invoked after a tenant has unequivocally repudiated the tenancy and claimed ownership.

Order XX Rule 5 CPC requires determination of issues, but interconnected issues may be considered together where no prejudice is caused.

Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, additional evidence is not required where the proposed evidence is irrelevant to the decisive controversy or merely seeks to fill a lacuna.

The Court held that although the Appellant acknowledged the earlier tenancy of his father, he expressly denied that Allah Rakkha or he had attorned to Sahar Bano or the Respondents and asserted that he occupied the premises as owner because no one had collected rent or claimed ownership for about sixty years.

These statements constituted a clear and unequivocal repudiation of the landlord–tenant relationship under Section 111(g) TPA.

Consequently, the Appellant could not subsequently rely on the inherited tenancy or claim protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act or the Slum Areas Act.

The objection regarding clubbing of issues was rejected because the issues decided together were interrelated and no prejudice was shown.

The old rent receipts were held immaterial: the earlier tenancy was already admitted and recorded in the Sale Deed, while the decisive issue was the Appellant’s subsequent repudiation and claim of ownership.

The challenge to mesne profits was also rejected, as the courts below had considered the evidence and surrounding circumstances in awarding Rs.1,000 per month.

The alleged errors therefore involved, at most, factual appreciation and did not raise a substantial question of law.

The decrees for possession, arrears of rent with interest, and mesne profits at Rs.1,000 per month were upheld.

The objections concerning the clubbing of issues, rejection of additional evidence, and award of mesne profits were rejected.

Pending applications were also disposed of.