Siddharth Mridul, J.

1. The present Regular First Appeal laid challenge to the impugned order dated 28th August, 2001, by which the preliminary issue was decided, by holding that the civil court has no jurisdiction, as the parties would be governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, since the rate of rent is Rs. 1,200/- per month i.e. below the cut off rate of rent of Rs. 3,500/- per month.

2. The learned Single Judge has referred the present appeal to us for considering the validity of the ratio of the judgment in the case of S. Makhan Singh v. Smt. Amarjeet Bali, 154 (2008) DLT 211 and asking for its reconsideration, inasmuch as it ignores the decision given by a Constitution Bench of seven Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, (1979) 4 SCC 214.

3. Firstly, the brief facts are:-

(a) The appellant is the landlord of the Property No. 5009, Rui Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 by virtue of agreement of sale dated 24th September, 1994 entered into between the plaintiff and respondent No. 2.

(b) The appellant claims to have let out a portion of the said property on or about the 1st July, 1994 to the respondent No. 1 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/- per month.

(c) Since, the respondent No. 1 neglected and failed to pay the arrears of rent to the appellant, the latter vide legal notice dated 26th/29th August, 1997 demanded arrears of rent and terminated the tenancy as required under Section106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(d) In response to the said legal notice the respondent No. 1 admittedly sent reply thereof through his advocate Mr. Jagdish Dhawan dated 1st November, 1997 denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and further denying that the appellant had let out the premises in the suit to the respondent No. 1.

(e) Since, the respondent No. 1 repudiated and renounced the relationship of landlord and tenant and set up his own title in the property, the appellant filed a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent as well as for recovery of damages against the respondent No. 1 as a trespasser.

(f) The respondent No. 1 appeared in the aforementioned suit and filed written statement. In the written statement the respondent No. 1 set up an independent title in the property in suit and claimed that he was the owner of the property in suit and so he was not liable to pay rent or damages to the appellant.

(g) By the impugned order the Trial Court vide its order dated 28th August, 2001 rejected the entire plaint holding that in the present case there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as the rent was below Rs. 3,500/- per month the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the present suit.

4. In the present appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the respondent No. 1, having denied the title of the appellant and, therefore, having repudiated the relationship of landlord and tenant, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties comes to an end and the parties therefore would not be governed by Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It was thus argued that the subject suit was maintainable for recovery of possession from the respondent No. 1 as a trespasser, arrears of rent and mesne profits with respect to the subject premises.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon S. Makhan Singh case (supra) where a learned Single Judge of this Court held that once a tenant denies the title of the landlord, then by virtue of Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the relationship of landlord and tenant comes to an end and the suit can therefore be filed in a civil court for possession of the property from the erstwhile tenant. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment being paragraph 5 reads as under:-

“A tenant has been given protection under Delhi Rent Control Act from eviction only where the jurial relationship of tenant and landlord was not disputed and the tenant claims himself to be the tenant