TMI Blog1993 (8) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 2 to 5 died in the year 1955. They have no knowledge of execution of any lease deed by the predecessor-in-interest. The land was in possession and enjoyment of their predecessors as owners even prior to 1905. No lease deed was executed. Even if there was any such lease, it was only nominal and never intended to be acted upon. They did not pay any rent to the appellant. Even if the tenancy is proved, being occupancy tenants they became owners by operation of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Property Right) Act, 1958. If the respondents are proved to be raiyats, they became owners, by operation of Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961. Alternatively they pleaded that they had prescribed adverse possession as they were not paying any rent at any time since 1905, but as owners they have been paying property tax to the Govt. On merits they denied the allegations made in the plaint. They disclaimed any receipt of notice prior to the suit. 2. The trial court found that the original lease deed was not produced. A copy of more than 30 years old was produced and was admissible in evidence which would show that Shardha Ram and Nar Singh Dass had executed a lease deed on October 20, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly ground on which the right of re-entry by forfeiture was provided thereunder was non-payment of annual ground rent of ₹ 2. But that is not the ground on which the suit was laid. Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act provides that a lease of immovable property determines by forfeiture, that is to say - (1) in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that, on breach thereof, the lessor may re-enter; or (2) in case the lessee renounces is character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself... and the lease provides that the lessor may re-enter on the happening of such event and in any of these cases the lessor or his transferee gives notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease. 4. The High Court held that the first clause has no application to the facts of this case as there was no covenant prohibiting sale or on its breach providing of the right of re-entry. Accordingly the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Then it was contended that since the respondents had set up title in themselves renouncing their character as tenants and also pleaded adverse possession in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court. 6. The question then emerges whether setting up a title in themselves as owners or acquisition of title and continuance in possession by operation of law or plea of adverse possession entails forfeiture, under Clause (2) in the background and circumstances of the case. The right of forfeiture is founded upon the existence of a lease and the jural relationship of lessor and the lessee as contemplated under Section 105 of the Act. It is implicit that if the lease is in operation the lessor had been given right to determine such a lease for committing breach of a covenant or for disclaimer by the lessee or for the insolvency of the lessee, and the happening of any of the three specified events ipso facto does not put an end to the lease, but it only exposes the lessee to the risk of forfeiting his lease and gives a right to the lessor, if he so elects, to determine the lease. Under Clause (2) disclaimer by denial of the landlord's title or setting up a title in himself or third party is a ground for forfeiture. In other words, there must be a renunciation of the character of the lessee as such either by setting up a title in himself or in other person or unequivoca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction of the pleadings in that case it was held that the denial was not unequivocal and the pleas set up in the circumstances emerging from the history of the treatment of the land and the nature of the enjoyment and the rights emerging therefrom do not constitute forfeiture. This Court had considered the effect of the enjoyment of lands, history of the case and held that the plea that property belonged to the appellant therein was merely of substantial character and the plea cannot be said to be a disclaimer of the right of the Govt. Similarly in paragraph 16 also it was held that the statements by the appellants claiming to have permanent and heritable interest in the land belong to him and that he was the owner of it, etc. did not amount to denial of landlord's title. Similarly setting up of the title thus for declaration of his title or his character in the suit property does not amount to unequivocal disclaimer inviting forfeiture under Section 111(g) of the Act. 9. In Punjab's decision there is an unequivocal admission of the relationship of landlord and tenant in prior litigation and on the basis thereof, it was held that the lessee forfeited his right to lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
