Denial of the lessor's title by the lessee can result in forfeiture of tenancy, and the suit for eviction cannot be dismissed for want of notice or defect in the notice.

M.R. Verma, J.—This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants (hereafter referred to as the plaintiffs) against the judgment and decree dated 4.9.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan whereby the judgment and decree dated 18.1.1997 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Arki has been set aside.

2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit against Chunku alias Dutt Ram, predecessor in interest of the respondents/defendants (hereafter referred to as the defendants) for eviction and handing over the vacant possession of one residential house cum shop comprised in Khasra Nos. 49/2 and 423/36, measuring 08 bighas, situate in village Darla, Pargna Parghat, Tehsil Arki. The case of the plaintiffs as made out in the plaint is that in the year 1978 said Chunku requested the plaintiffs to rent out the aforesaid premises to him on annual rent of Rs. 60 and verbally agreed to vacate the same within one year on his having constructed own residential house cum shop. Pursuant to the said agreement, the predecessor in interest of the defendants continued in possession of the said premises and failed to vacate them despite several requests by the plaintiffs. On 3.10.1978 even a rent deed was executed whereby the premises were to be vacated on demand. On failure of the predecessor in interest of the defendants, a notice dated 15.2.1993 was served upon him to hand over the vacant possession but of no avail. Hence the suit.

3. The suit was contested. In the written statement preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit, non-joinder of necessary parties, locus standi, lack of material particulars, want of service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereafter referred to as the Act) and the notice allegedly served being invalid, valuation and estoppel by acts and deeds were raised. On merits, exclusive title of the plaintiffs over the premises in suit was denied. It was claimed that the structure in question was independently constructed by the deceased defendant who also carried out major repairs. It has also been claimed by adding an additional plea that the suit is barred by limitation. Other averments in the written statement on merits include the objections which have been taken as preliminary objections.

4. The plaintiffs filed replication in which the grounds of defence taken in the written statement have been denied and the claim as made out in the plaint, has been reiterated.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues : "1. Whether the plaintiffs alone are joint owners in possession of the suit land, as alleged. OPP.

2. Whether the premises in dispute were let out to the defendant in 1978 on payment of Rs. 60 PA. as rent as alleged? OPP.

3. If issue No. 2 is proved in affirmative, whether the tenancy of the defendant was validly terminated through legal and valid notice dated 15.2.1993, as alleged? OPP.

4. Whether the plaintiffs have cause of action? OPD.

5. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.

6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.

7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.

8. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to sue? OPD.

9. Whether this suit is bad for want of better particulars as alleged. If so, its effect? OPD.

10. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their act and conduct? OPD.

11. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD.

12. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPD.

13. Relief."

6. On the basis of the material brought on record, the learned trial Judge decided issue No. 1 against the plaintiffs whereas issues No. 2, 3 and 4 wire decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Issues No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were decided against the defendants and issue No. 1