A tenant who renounces his character as a tenant or denies the landlord's title is disentitled from the protection under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, and a notice of forfeiture under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act is not required in such cases.

JUDGEMENT :- The second appeal before me which is by a tenant and arises out of a suit for eviction raises a question about the applicability of clause (f) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", that is the non-availability of protection under the section on the tenant's renouncing his character as a tenant or by denying the title of the landlord.

2. The subject-matter of the suit was a shop situated at Karauli. The plaintiffs Ishwarlal and Bajranglal who were brothers, had purchased this shop from one Ramakishan Babulal by a registered sale deed dated 16-10-1968. The defendants Moolchand and his son Radbey Shyam were said to be the tenants of the transferor Ramakishan Babulal on a monthly rent of Rs. 1.25 paise. The transferor gave notice of the sale of the property to the defendant-tenants intimating that the shop had been sold to the plaintiffs Ishwarlal and Bajranglal and thereafter the tenants should pay rent to them. Then the plaintiffs served a notice on 13-9-1968 on the defendants terminating the tenancy in accordance with Section 106. Transfer of Property Act and then filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction on 23-12-1968. The eviction of the defendants was sought on two grounds namely, default in payment of rent and bona fide personal necessity of the landlords. On 20-3-1969, however, the plaintiffs filed an amendment application seeking permission of the Court for taking an additional ground for ejectment namely, that the defendants having repudiated the title of their landlords by their notice Exhibit 4 dated 30-10-1968 served through Shri Basant Kishore Bhargava, Advocate, they were liable to be evicted.

2-A. The defendants admitted that they were the tenants of the plaintiffs, but they denied that they were in default in paying the rent or that the landlords had the personal necessity for the suit shop. They also denied that notice Exhibit 4 had been served by Shri Basant Kishore Advocate under their instructions.

3. The learned Munsif framed the following issues :-

4. Both the parties adduced their evidence. The learned Munsif, however, dismissed the suit holding that neither there was any default in the payment of rent nor were the plaintiffs able to prove their bona fide personal necessity and further it has not been shown that the defendants had repudiated the title of the landlords to the suit property.

5. Aggrieved by the decree of the learned Munsif the plaintiffs went up in appeal to the Court of Additional District Judge, Gangapur City. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs pressed only one point and it was that the defendants having repudiated the title of the landlords and having set up their own title in the suit property had disentitled themselves from the protection claimable under Section 13 of the Act. The learned Judge put reliance on the testimony of Shri Basant Kishore. Advocate in this regard. He observed that although Shri Basant Kishore could not say as to which of the defendants had approached him for giving a reply to the notice of the transferor landlords there was no reason to believe that notice was given by Shri Basant Kishore without the defendants' instructions. Apart from this the learned Additional District Judge referred to two entries from the Municipal records relating to house-tax which has been proved by the testimony of P.W. 4 Ranjit Pal. He stated that the entries Exs. 6 and 7 had been made by him according to what the defendants had stated. One was an entry of 1961 and, according to Ranjit Pal, it was Mathura who stated that the shop belonged to him. The other entry was of the year 1968 which was made at the instance of Mool Chand. Accordingly, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the defendants had repudiated the title of their landlords by setting up a title in themselves and had consequently disentitled themselves from the protection under the Act. In the re