The main legal point established is the requirement of clear and unequivocal renunciation by the tenant to determine the lease by forfeiture under section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the necessity for explicit pleading and proof of waiver by the landlord.

( 1 ) -THE petitioner who is the defendant of SCC Suit No. 48 of 1981 has sought the quashing of the decree for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the dismissal of the revision that had been filed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 for setting aside the said decree.

( 2 ) THE records of the writ petition indicate that the aforesaid SCC Suit No. 48 of 1981 had been filed with the allegations that Abdul Hameed Khan was the owner of the suit premises; that he died 20 years back and the plaintiffs who were the heirs and legal representatives succeeded as owners and landlord of the property in dispute; that the property in dispute had been let out by Abdul Hameed Khan to Manglu, father of the defendant, on a monthly rent of 8 annas w. e. f. 10th December, 1949 and a registered rent deed dated 10th December, 1949 was duly executed between the parties; that after the death of Manglu, defendant Bhagwat became the tenant of the premises in dispute; that the defendant had not paid any rent from 1974 in spite of repeated demands; that by the notice dated 25th June, 1981 which was served upon the defendant on 29th June, 1981, the plaintiffs had terminated the tenancy and demanded arrears of rent; that in reply to the said notice the defendant asserted that the plaintiff was neither the landlord nor the owner of the premises in dispute; that consequently the plaintiffs sent a notice dated 18th August, 1981 determining the tenancy because of denial of title by the defendant and that this notice was duly served upon the defendant on 18th August, 1981. The suit was, accordingly, filed for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent.

( 3 ) THE suit was decreed by the judgment and order dated 30th May, 1983 but the revision filed by the tenant under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for framing a point regarding determination of lease by forfeiture as alleged in the plaint and then decide the suit in accordance with law.

( 4 ) THE learned Judge, Small Causes Courts again decreed the suit on 21st January, 1985 and the revision filed by the defendant was dismissed.

( 5 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the materials available on record.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners urged that the Courts below fell in error in holding that the lease of the property had been determined by forfeiture under section 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the t. P. Act) inasmuch as the defendant had not denied the title of the landlord in clear and unequivocal terms and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sheela and others v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, 2002 (47) ALR 415 (SC ). and the decision of this Court in jagdish Prasad Gupta v. Smt. Kanti Devi and others, 1981 ARC 327=1981 (7) ALR 15 (Sum ).

( 7 ) IT has also been submitted that the suit was liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff had not pleaded and proved that he had waived his right of reentry or condoned the conduct of the tenant as was required to be done in view of the provisions of section 20 (2) (f) of the Act and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Mohd. Aleem v. Mohd. Abrar and others, 1989 (1) ARC 329.

( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the defendant tenant had renounced his character as a tenant in clear and unequivocal terms by setting up the title of the suit premises in himself and as such the lessor was justified in determining the lease in view of the provisions of section 111 (g) of the T. P. Act and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Narain Das Khanna v. Dr. Jawahar Lal Bhatia, 1983 (9) ALR 143. Learned Couns