Denial of the landlord's title by the tenant results in the forfeiture of the tenant's right of tenancy, allowing the civil court to grant a decree for possession.

Raj Mohan Singh, J.

Instant Regular Second Appeal was filed under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act. In view of Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ganpat v. Smt. Ram Devi and others 1977, PLR Page I framing of question of law was having no effect on the maintainability of the appeal. However, in view of amendment of Section 100 CPC, framing of substantial question of law is sine qua non for maintaining regular second appeal in this Court. Prior to amendment, the appeal could have been filed on the ground set out in clause (a) to (c) of Section 100(i) CPC. Now second appeal requires substantial question of law to be framed and thereafter inference can be made, because inference cannot be made only because the order is contrary to law, but when the disputed issues raise a substantial question of law limiting such a power in the Appellate Authority based on public policy having roots in the maxim of ''interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium".

2. Adhering to the aforesaid requirement, this Court considers that following substantial questions of law can be formulated in this regular second appeal for consideration:-

1. Whether denial of title of the plaintiff by the defendant amounts to repudiating the relationship of landlord and tenant, giving rise to forfeiture of lease?

2. Whether denial of relationship of the landlord and tenant by the defendant gives rise to determination of tenancy and gives right of possession of the property in favour of the plaintiffs by way of a civil suit?

3. Before adverting to the facts of the present appeal, it is necessary to peruse the status of other connected appeals. In the present appeal, pleadings of the parties are complete. However, in other connected appeals pleadings are not complete.

4. On 11.11.2011 this Court observed that there is nobody to represent the respondent(s) in other three remaining appeals i.e. RSA Nos.2050, 2051 of 1989 and 772 of 1991. The Court directed the office to inform the learned counsel representing the respondent(s) in those remaining three appeals. It was made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted. On the adjourned date, learned counsel for the appellants sought time to implead the legal representatives of respondent(s) in RSA Nos.2050 of 1989 and 772 of 1991 and notice issued to respondent in RSA No.2051 of 1989 was not received back served or otherwise.

5. The non-service of respondent(s) in connected appeals will not prevent this Court to decide the present appeal in which pleadings are complete. The fault attributed to the appellants or LR's of respondent(s) themselves in not pursuing the litigation would be seen in those appeals when these appeals will be taken up. Therefore, the present appeal RSA No.2049 of 1989 is segregated from the lot and is being taken up for disposal.

6. Plaintiffs are in appeal in a suit for possession in respect of land measuring 16 Kanal 16 Marla claiming ownership and alleged that the defendant is in wrongful possession of the land without any right, title or interest therein. Being owner of the property, plaintiffs alleged that they are entitled to seek possession thereof as the defendant has refused to deliver the same. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground of maintainability, limitation and the defendant claimed the property in his own rights of adverse possession being in possession of the same for the last 25 years. The suit was contested on other customary grounds also.

7. On filing of the replication, trial Court framed the following issues :-

"1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the land in dispute? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the possession of the land in dispute?

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.

5. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD.

6. Whether the defendants have become the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPD.

7. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their