The court established that a property owner can claim ejectment based on title even when a tenant denies the landlord-tenant relationship.

1. This is defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for the ejectment of the defendant from the house in dispute and for possession over the same and for a sum of Rs. 180/- as damages for use and occupation. The plaintiff's case was that he was the owner of the house and had let out the premises to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 5/-. Plaintiff served on him a notice to quit on 25-10-1959. The defendant instead of vacating the premises denied the plaintiff's title and claimed title in himself. The plaintiff therefore filed the present suit. The defence was that the house had been given to the defendant twenty - eight years back by Palakdhari Singh the original owner of the house from whom the plaintiff claimed to have purchased it on 20-7-1949. He also claimed to have acquired title under S.9 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on the ground that he was holding the house and had spent considerable amount in re - constructing the same.

2. The plaintiff could not produce the original sale deed and the trial Court did not admit the secondary evidence of the same produced in the form of a certified copy and accordingly held that the plaintiff had failed to prove his title. The suit was also held to be barred by limitation. On appeal filed by the plaintiff the learned Additional Civil Judge held that the loss of the original sale deed had been sufficiently proved and the certified copy was admissible in evidence. On the basis of the sale deed he held that the plaintiff was the owner of the house. The appellate Court, however, negatived the contention of the plaintiff that the house was let out to the defendant as alleged. But on the finding that the defendant had failed to prove title or possession for more than 12 years prior to the date of the suit, held that he was not entitled to resist the plaintiff's suit. The lower appellate court has disbelieved the defendant's case that he had taken the house from Palakdhari about 28 years back. It also disbelieved the defendant's case that he had re - constructed the house. The appellate court with regard to damages held that the plaintiff was entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 2/- per month and not at the rate of Rs. 5/- as claimed by him. On these findings the appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment of the defendant and for recovery of Rs. 71/75.

3. Aggrieved by the decree the defendant has come up in Second Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the suit was based on forfeiture of lease and as notice requiring the defendant to vacate under S.111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act had not been given, the suit was liable to be dismissed. The contention has no force. A reading of the plaint shows that the suit was based not on the forfeiture of lease but on the ground that the house was occupied by the defendant as a trespasser. Plaintiff had alleged that the defendant was the tenant and the tenancy had been terminated by a notice under S.106 of the , but as in reply to the notice the defendant had denied the plaintiff's title, he filed the suit on the basis of title and not on the basis of the contract of tenancy. In paragraph 9 of the plaint the plaintiff valued the suit according to the market value of the house and paid ad valorem court fees as is payable on a plaint in a suit based on title by the owner of property against a trespasser. He did not claim relief in the suit, on the basis of his right under S.108(q) of the . S.111(g) only says that a lease is terminable by forfeiture. Sub-section (h) of S.108 makes a lease terminable on a notice to quit. A right to possession on termination of tenancy comes by virtue of S.108(q) of the . If a plaintiff seeks to enforce that right, it would be a suit betw