Tenant's claim of proprietorship firm tenancy instead of individual does not forfeit lease under Section 111(g)(2) TPA, as firm is not separate from proprietor and no adverse title set up.

JUDGMENT :

ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

(1) Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties forthwith.

(2) The present appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 20/11/2012 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-2 Amravati in R.C.A.No.154/2007, whereby the learned appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree dated 21/07/2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandur Railway in R.C.S.No.33/2004 by which the learned trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by the respondent/original plaintiff to the extent of prayer for recovery of possession and has merely granted a decree for recovery of arrears of rent. The appellants are original defendants and respondent is the original plaintiff. The parties will hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendants.

(3) Vide order dated 20/01/2014 following substantial questions of law were framed in the present appeal :-

(1) Whether the first appellate Court, while reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, recorded findings which can be described as perverse or unsustainable in law ?

(2) Whether relief under Section 111(g)(2) of the Transfer of Property Act for forfeiting tenancy in favour of Mohammad Siddique was available to the landlord in this case against the appellants ?

(3) Whether any of the appellants before the Court claimed tenancy in the capacity of legal heirs of the original tenant Mohammad Siddique ?

(4) Whether first appellate Court rightly granted damages and also rightly ordered mesne profit payable by the appellants to the owner of the suit premises ?

(4) The plaintiff filed suit for possession and recovery of arrears of rent and damages against the defendants with respect to the suit property which comprises shop blocks situated at Old Motor Stand, Chandur Railway, District Amravati. The plaintiff filed the said suit stating that Late Mohd. Siddique Ali Mohd. Janwani was occupying the suit property as his tenant since the year 1960 on rent of Rs.72/-p.m. He stated that the tenant was paying rent regularly to him. It is the case of the plaintiff that when his servant had been to the tenant to deliver rent receipts for rent paid for period from 01/01/1993 to 31/03/1993 and 01/04/1993 to 31/08/1993, the tenant exerted pressure on the servant and compelled him to incorporate the words, “M/s. Rafique Kirana Stores” in the said receipts and thereafter, he signed the said receipts. It is the case of plaintiff that Mohd. Siddique was his tenant and that M/s. Rafique Kirana Stores was never his tenant. The plaintiff stated that the tenant Mohd.Siddique was sending rent by money order in the name of M/s. Rafique Kirana Stores, which he refused to accept since M/s. Rafique Kirana Stores was not the tenant. The defendants issued letter dated 30/07/1994 on the letter head of M/s. Rafique Kirana Stores to the plaintiff claiming that M/s.Rafique Kirana Stores was the tenant. The plaintiff issued legal notice dated 30/09/1994 stating that M/s. Rafique Kirana Stores was not his tenant and therefore, rent could not be accepted from M/s. Rafique Kirana Stores. The plaintiff demanded payment of rent from Mohd. Siddique. The defendants issued reply notice dated 25/10/1994 inter alia stating that the tenant of the suit property was always M/s.Rafique Kirana Stores and that Mohd. Siddique was never a tenant in his individual capacity. In this backdrop, the plaintiff filed aforesaid sui