Title of landlord denied by tenant.

ISMAIL, C.J.:- These petitions have been filed to revise the order of the Appellate Authority functioning under Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960, dated 12-3-1979; allowing the appeals filed before him by the respondents herein and dismissing the rent control petitions filed by the petitioner herein. The rent control petitions were dismissed on the ground that the denial of title of the petitioner by the tenants was bona fide. The result of that will be that the petitioner will have to file a suit for the purpose of getting the necessary relief.

2. As far as the finding that the denial of title is bona fide is concerned, we are of the opinion that there was abundant material before the

appellate authority on the basis of which it could come to the conclusion that the denial of title was bona fide.

3. However, what Mr. Shamdoss, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends is that the present is not a case to which the second proviso to Section 10 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 will apply. Section 10 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960, along with its two provisos, reads as follows-

"10 (1) A tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of this section or Sections 14 to 16;

Provided that nothing contained in the said sections shall apply to a tenant whose landlord is the Government;

Provided further that, where the tenant denies the title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, the Controller shall decide whether the denial or claim is bona fide and, if he records a finding to that effect, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a civil court and the court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in the said sections, notwithstanding that the court finds that such denial does not involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded".

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second proviso has to be read along with the definition of the term 'landlord' occurring in Section 2(6) of the Act, as well as the provision for filing a suit contemplated by the proviso itself. Section 2(6) of the Act defines the expression 'landlord' as follows-

"'landlord' includes the person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether an his own account or on behalf of another or on behalf of himself and others or its an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, or guardian, or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant".

4. Thus, it will be seen that the definition is an inclusive one and does not actually define the term 'landlord'. Therefore, the inclusive definition adds to the normal concept of landlord certain other categories of persons also. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the denial of title of the landlord contemplated by the second proviso to Section 10 (1) will have to be read in the context of the definition of the term landlord' occurring in Section 2 (6) and that, if so read, it will, merely mean denial of the right of the person to file an eviction petition; in other words, to question the maintainability of the petition itself.

5. If it is so understood, the maintainability of the petition can be challenged on several grounds, namely, that the person concerned is not entitled to receive the rent that the person concerned is not an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian, and that similar questions might possibly arise in such a context. However, the expression 'denial of title of the landlord' is not peculiar to Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960, it is always known to the law of landlord and tenant and incorporated in the Transfer of Property Act. In fact, S.111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act provides for forfeiture in case the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by