Questioning Landlord's Derivative Title For Want of Documentation Does Not Amount to Forfeiture of Tenancy

The Appellant (Plaintiff) purchased property No. 2000-2002, Katra Lacchu Singh, Delhi, via a registered Sale Deed in 1997.

The Respondent’s father was a tenant in two portions of the property at rents of ₹50 and ₹60 per month respectively; the Respondent succeeded to these tenancies.

The Appellant initially filed eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act.

In his written statement, the Respondent denied the Appellant’s ownership due to allegedly incomplete documentation provided at the time.

Labeling this a forfeiture of tenancy, the Appellant withdrew the eviction petitions and filed civil suits for possession and damages.

The Trial Court rejected the suits as barred under Section 50 of the DRC Act, holding that the Respondent had not "disclaimed" the title but merely sought clarification on the derivative title.

1. Whether the denial of the landlord's derivative title by the tenant in previous proceedings amounted to forfeiture of tenancy under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

2. Whether the Civil Suit for possession was barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

The court applied Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA), which mandates that forfeiture occurs only if a lessee renounces their character by setting up title in a third person or claiming it themselves.

It relied on Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan v. Municipal Board of Sitapur, noting that disclaimer must be "clear and unequivocal".

Under Hatimullah v. Mahamad Arju Choudhury, a tenant seeking to protect themselves by asking for proof of a derivative title (from an assignee/vendee) does not forfeit their tenancy.

Per Bismillah Be v. Majeed Shah, Section 116 of the Evidence Act estops a tenant from denying the original landlord's title, but they retain a limited right to question the "derivative title" of a subsequent purchaser unless they have already attorned to them.

Section 50 of the DRC Act bars civil court jurisdiction for premises where the rent is below ₹3500 and the tenant is protected by the Act.

The Court observed that the Respondent never claimed ownership for himself nor set up a title in a third party; he explicitly admitted his status as a tenant under the erstwhile owner.

Applying the distinction between "non-acceptance" and "repudiation," the Court found that the Respondent merely questioned the Appellant's derivative title due to the non-production of complete registration particulars of the Sale Deed.

Since the Respondent had not attorned to the Appellant (by paying rent), he was legally entitled to verify the Appellant's credentials.

The Court reasoned that there was no "clear and unequivocal" disclaimer of the landlord-tenant relationship required to trigger forfeiture under Section 111(g) of the TPA.

The Appellant’s withdrawal of the eviction petitions was a voluntary act and did not change the Respondent's status as a protected tenant; therefore, the Civil Suit for possession was rightly held to be barred by Section 50 of the DRC Act.

The High Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Trial Court's judgment rejecting the plaints.