Denial of the landlord's ownership title by the tenant legally brings the tenancy to an end, allowing the filing of a civil suit for possession.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 24.01.2006 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for possession, damages and injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants. Respondent no.1/Defendant no. 1 was the tenant inducted by the appellant/plaintiff in the suit property being the ground floor of the property bearing No. 53/6, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter 'suit property'). The respondent no.2/defendant no.2 is pleaded to be the sub-tenant of the respondent no.1/defendant no.1.

2. The only issue for consideration in the suit, as well as in the present appeal, was whether the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Admittedly, the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 was inducted as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 260/- per month and tus having the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The case of the appellant/plaintiff, however, was that the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 was not entitled to protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, inasmuch as the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 did not remain a tenant because in proceedings instituted in an earlier suit, the reply filed by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 to a contempt application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 2(A) CPC, the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 had denied the ownership of the appellant/plaintiff to the suit property. It is pleaded that on denial by a tenant of the ownership of the appellant/plaintiff/landlord of a tenanted property, the tenancy comes to an end, and a civil suit for possession in the civil court is maintainable.

3. The issue is no longer res integra because a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Naeem Ahmed v. Yash Pal Malhotra (Deceased) Through Lr's and Another, 188 (2012)DLT 579 has held that on the tenant denying the ownership of the landlord of a tenanted premises, the tenancy of a tenant is legally brought to an end. The relevant paras of this judgment are paras 12 and 13 and these paras read as under:-

“12. As aforesaid, in Kurella’s case (supra) and Abdulla Bin Ali’s case (supra) when the tenants deny the title of the landlord and the tenancy, the suit filed for recovery of possession is not on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and would lie only in the civil suit and not otherwise. In the present case also it is observed that in response to the legal notice, the respondent no.1 denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and denied that the appellant had let out the premises in suit to the respondent no.1. Consequently, the respondent no.1 had repudiated and renounced the relationship of landlord and tenant and set up his own title in the property. Therefore, the appellant had filed the suit for recovery of possession in the civil court since the occupation of the respondent no.1 had become unauthorized and that of a trespasser.

13. In view of the above we hold that the ratio of the decision in S. Makhan Singh case (supra) does not warrant reconsideration. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case the suit was cognizable by the civil court and the impugned order was erroneous, inasmuch as it held that the same was barred by provisions of Section 50(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Trial Court with directions to readmit the suit under its original number in the register of civil suits and to proceed to determine the suit from the stage when the impugned order was passed in accordance with law. A copy of this order and judgment along with Trial Court record be transmitted to the court of the concerned District Judge