Denial or repudiation of the landlord-tenant relationship results in forfeiture of the lease, enabling the landlord to recover possession. Additionally, mere acceptance of rent without the intention to treat the lease as subsisting would not amount to waiver of termination of tenancy.

1. This Second appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Order dt.22-08-2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Khamgaon whereby the first Appellate Court had allowed the appeal, decreeing the suit for eviction and possession, damages and mesne profits.

2. The subject matter of the dispute is suit tenement on the ground floor of Plot no.99/2 situated in Nazul Sheet no. 33B at Khamgaon, District Buldana, which was let out to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. The plaintiff had filed an application to the Rent Controller, Khamgaon for permission to issue quit notice to the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement. The proceeding was opposed on the ground that the landlord was 'Benamidar' (not real owner)'. Plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 122 of 1993 for eviction of the defendant in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Khamgaon, District Buldana for relief of possession and recovery of damages. The defendant had denied title of the landlord–plaintiff. The defendant was served with notice dt.29-04-1993 (Exh. 44) on the ground that tenancy was forfeited and vacant possession and damages, mesne profits were claimed. The defendant had replied the notice (Exh.45). The trial Court had dismissed the suit.

3. The substantial question of law set out is as under:

a) Whether as effect of the denial/disclaimer of the title of the landlord by the Tenant, the tenancy is liable to be forfeited? Whether there was waiver of notice of forfeiture issued by the landlord by accepting the rent from the Tenant after service of the notice of forfeiture? My answer is tenancy was liable to be forfeited and there was no waiver of notice of forfeiture merely by acceptance of rent in the facts and circumstances of the case for following reasons.

4. The defendant had pleaded in the proceedings before the Rent Controller that suit premises was purchased by one Inderkumar Sancheti in the name of the plaintiff. Thus, the title of the landlord was denied by the defendant-tenant by way of defence before the Rent Controller.

5. Mr. A.V. Bhide, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court had dismissed the suit on the ground that the bona fide requirement of the land lord was not established, but the first appellate Court erred to decree the suit. According to Mr. Bhide merely because there was disclaimer of title of the land lord by the tenant, it would not enable the landlord to claim eviction of the tenant.

6. Mr. Bhide relied upon the ruling in Bapubhai Papabhai Vs. Khairunnisa Abdul Kadar reported in 1992 Mh.L.J. 521 to argue that when the trial Court had dismissed the suit, the appellate Court could not have decreed the suit on totally new ground and if so, it amounts to error of jurisdiction. I have seen the ruling. Facts of the case appear different. In that case, the tenant was inducted by the predecessor-in-title of the land lord. The tenant required the new landlord to prove her title. It did not follow that the tenant had denied the title prior to the filing of the suit. In fact, the defendants had never denied the title to the suit property. The appellate Court had decreed the suit on totally new ground not pleaded in the plaint. Thus, this Court held that the decree passed by the appellate Court was without jurisdiction. The ruling is, therefore, not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this case in hand, the tenant denied title of the landlord during pendency of proceedings before the Rent Controller. Denial was conscious out of the tenant

7. Mr. Bhide placed reliance upon the ruling in Subhash Chandra vs. Mohommad Sharif & Others reported in (1990) 1 SCC 252. In this case, it is held that where the tenant was not inducted by the landlord and the title of the land lord is derivative such as Assignee, Donee, Vendee, Heir etc., the tenant can challenge the derivative title showing that the real owner is somebody else. But, at the same time, the ruling makes it clear th