Judgment

VENKATACHALIAH, J. :- This appeal, by special leave, by the tenant arises out of and is directed against the judgment dated 10-7-1980 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5661 of 1979 (reported in AIR 1980 All 320) rejecting the appellants challenge to the decrees of ejectment granted in favour of the third respondent-landlord on the ground that there was a denial of the title of the landlord within the meaning, and for purposes, of S. 3(l)(f) of the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (Act III of 1947).

The appeal raises a short question whether, in the circumstances of the case, there was a disclaimer on the part of the appellant of the landlords title, so as to incur forfeiture of the tenancy.

2. The necessary and material facts may briefly be stated :

The premises in question, i.e. No. 7/3, Shambhoo Barracks, Allahabad, originally belonged to a certain Shambhoo Lal Jain. Shamboolal died in the year 1943 leaving behind him his widow Rajul Devi; his two sons, Dayachand and Dhoomchand; and a daughter Mainavati. Dayachand, it is stated, went away in adoption to the family of one Banvarilal, a brother of Shamboolal. Pursuant to and in execution of a money-decree obtained by the said Mainavati against her brother Dhoomchand, she brought the said premises for sale and claimed to have purchased the same at a Court-sale on 21-5-1956. Mainavati thereafter, conveyed the property by sale in favour of a certain Gopinath Agrawal.

Appellant who was in occupation of the premises as a tenant even prior to the sale attorned the tenancy in favour of the purchaser Gopinath and came to pay the rents to Gopinath accordingly. Gopinath, in turn, sold the property in favour of Chhaya Gupta, the third respondent herein. Both the vendor-Gopinath and the purchaser- Chhaya Gupta issued notices to the appellant to attorn the tenancy in favour of the purchaser, Chhaya Gupta. But appellant-tenant declined to do so and assailed not only the derivative title of the third-respondent to the property but also the validity of the sale in favour of Gopinath himself.

3. The provocation for the denial on the part of the appellant of the third respondents title was this. It would appear that in a separate litigation which culminated in the judgment dated 6-7-1971 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 260 of 1968 between the said Mainavati on the one hand and a certain Chamanlal on the other, it was held that what Mainavati had acquired under the execution sale of 24-4-1956 was not the totality of all rights and interests in the property, but was only such right, title and interest as the judgment-debtor, i.e. Dhoomchand, had and that the Court-sale did not convey to Mainavati the interest of Rajuldevi, the widow of Shamboolal Jain. It was also held that Chamanlal who obtained a decree against both Dhoomchand and the estate of Shamboolal would, notwithstanding the sale in favour of Mainavati, be entitled to bring the residuary interests in the same property for sale in his execution. Appellant sought to raise this defect in Mainavatis title. But the point to note, however, is that the appellant had attorned the tenancy in favour of Gopinath Agarwal, paid rents throughout the period during which Gopinaths interest subsisted. The question was whether despite this attornment, the appellant could assail Gopinaths title. Appellant sought to assert that the sale in favour of Gopinath was void and conveyed nothing.

This act, on the part of the appellant of denial and disclaimer of the title was the foundation of the proceedings in ejectment. The High Court, dismissing the appellants writ petition, has upheld the order of ejectment made by the Courts below.

4. We have heard Shri K. B. Asthana, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Shri B. D. Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting third-respondent. The point that Shri Asthana sought to put across was that the High Court was in error in its v