Tenant's denial of landlord's title forfeits tenancy under Section 111(g); becomes trespasser with Civil Court jurisdiction for possession, excluding Small Causes Court; limitation runs from denial date.

JUDGMENT :

ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

1. The present appeal came to be admitted vide order dated 27.03.2012 on the following substantial question of law:-

“The suit for declaration and restoration of possession as filed by the respondents on the basis of forfeiture of tenancy of the appellants under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagpur, whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit for possession when Special Court i.e. Small Causes Court, Nagpur is available for adjudication of the same and whether such a suit is tenable in law?”

2. In a nutshell, the dispute between the parties is that the suit property was let by late Punjabrao Vithalrao Vaidhya, predecessor of respondent No.2, to one Ramaji Poharwar, predecessor of appellant. While the tenancy was in subsistence, the tenant claimed that there was an agreement of sale with respect to the tenanted premises by the landlord in his favour and accordingly he filed a suit for specific performance of contract, being Regular Civil Suit No.71 of 19971.

3. It is not in dispute that this suit for specific performance of contract was dismissed and the dismissal had attained finality before this Court somewhere in the year 1995. After the suit was dismissed, the landlord filed a proceeding, being Miscellaneous Application No.87 of 1996, against the tenant. In this proceeding, the tenant filed reply on 19.03.1996 denying the title of landlord and claiming ownership over the suit property/tenanted premises.

4. In view of this development i.e. denial of title, the landlord issued notice of forfeiture as contemplated under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and filed a suit for possession, being Regular Civil suit No.3636 of 2001 (Old Special Civil Suit No.1061 of 1996). The suit came to be decreed by the learned 8^th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur, vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2005. The present appellants preferred appeal challenging the said judgment and decree, being Regular Civil Appeal No.105 of 2006, which came to be dismissed by the learned District Judge-6, Nagpur, vide judgment and decree dated 23.08.2011. These concurrent decrees for possession are subject matter of challenge in the present second appeal in which the aforesaid substantial question of law came to be framed.

5. Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar, learned Advocate for the appellants vehemently argues that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction. The contention of Mr. Kshirsagar is that although the agreement of sale altered the status of parties and they did not continue to be landlord and tenant, nonetheless, the jurisdiction to decide the suit will continue to vest with the learned Small Causes Court.

6. Dr. Anjan De, learned Advocate for the respondents however supports the judgments and decrees. The learned Advocate would contend that by claiming ownership in himself, the tenant has renounced his character as a tenant and as such, the occupation ceased to be in the character of a tenant. He contends that once the tenancy is forfeited, the possession of tenant assumes the character of trespasser and therefore, the suit was rightly filed before the learned Civil Court. The learned Advocate has placed reliance on judgments of this Court in the cases of Ratanala manikchand Shah ..vs.. Chanbasappa Sanganbasappa Chincholi , 1978 AIR (Bom) 21, J.C. and Sons ..vs.. Ghafrana Banobi Ahmed Ali , 2007 (4) ALL MR 245 and Kashinath Gosavi Patil ..vs.. Govala Vyankanna Tatayya , 1995 (1) MhLJ 861 an