Tenant Setting Up Adverse Title and Repudiating Landlordship Forfeits Tenancy Rights Under Section 111(g) of TPA.

The Plaintiff/Appellant filed a suit for possession, declaration, and permanent injunction regarding shop nos. 2 and 3 in property no. 9/196, Madangir, New Delhi.

The property was originally allotted by the DDA to Sh. Khairati Lal, who inducted Defendant No. 1 (Jabbar Khan) as a tenant in 1991.

Following the death of Khairati Lal and his son Kishan Lal, the legal heirs (Defendants No. 2 and 3) executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) and Agreement to Sell in favor of the Plaintiff in 2015.

Defendant No. 1 refused to vacate, claiming he had acquired ownership rights by paying "Pagri" and a lump sum of Rs. 2,20,000 to the heirs.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding the Plaintiff failed to prove absolute ownership as he lacked a registered Sale Deed and the transferors lacked clear title from the DDA.

1. Whether the Plaintiff/Appellant established sufficient locus standi as Landlord/Owner to maintain the suit.

2. Whether the status of Defendant No. 1 remained that of a tenant or had converted to an owner.

3. Whether the suit was barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act, 1958.

The court applied Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the extinguishment of property rights if not challenged within the limitation period.

It relied on Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, which establishes that an Agreement to Sell/GPA does not confer absolute ownership but can protect possession or establish a landlord-tenant relationship.

The court applied Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act (estoppel of tenant).

The court applied Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, regarding the forfeiture of lease when a tenant renounces their character by setting up title in themselves.

The Court found that while the Plaintiff could not be "declared" an absolute owner without a Sale Deed under Suraj Lamps, the GPA executed by the admitted legal heirs of the original allottee (whose rights were preserved via Section 27 of the Limitation Act) validly authorized the Plaintiff to act as a landlord.

Regarding Defendant No. 1, the Court observed that "Pagri" payments do not confer ownership, and the Defendant had previously admitted his tenancy in judicial proceedings in 2009.

The Court reasoned that because Defendant No. 1 unequivocally renounced his status as a tenant by claiming independent ownership in his written statement, a "forfeiture" of the lease occurred under Section 111(g)(2) of the TPA.

Consequently, the protection typically afforded to tenants under the DRC Act was lost, making the civil suit for possession maintainable.

The High Court set aside the Trial Court's judgment and decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff. The Court ordered the Respondent to hand over possession and granted a permanent injunction against creating third-party interests.