Delhi High Court Upholds Eviction of Tenant Claiming Ownership; Holds Clear Repudiation of Tenancy Forfeits Lease and Bars Protection Under Rent and Slum Laws
Delhi High Court Holds Tenant’s Ownership Claim Forfeited Tenancy; Rejects Defence of ‘Once a Tenant, Always a Tenant’ After Unequivocal Repudiation
Facts
The dispute concerned property bearing Municipal No. 6859, Gali No. 18, Ahata Kidara, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. The property had been purchased by Mst. Sahar Bano @ Chaman through a registered sale deed dated 27 January 1992. After her death, the plaintiffs, Mst. Arshi Qureshi and Mst. Iram, claimed ownership as her legal heirs in equal shares.
The sale deed itself recorded that Allah Rakkha was a tenant of the first-floor portion at a monthly rent of ₹20. After his death, his legal heirs inherited the tenancy. The plaintiffs alleged that Mohd. Mahboob ultimately remained in occupation and later defaulted in payment of rent.
The plaintiffs issued legal notices terminating the tenancy and sought possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits and injunctions.
In his defence, Mohd. Mahboob denied the plaintiffs’ ownership and the landlord-tenant relationship. More significantly, he asserted that because nobody had claimed ownership or collected rent for decades, he himself had become the owner of the premises.
The Civil Judge decreed possession in favour of the plaintiffs and held the defendant to be an unauthorized occupant after repudiating the plaintiffs’ title. Arrears of rent at ₹20 per month and mesne profits at ₹1,000 per month were also awarded.
The first appeal was dismissed by the District Judge. Mohd. Mahboob then filed a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC before the Delhi High Court.
Issues
The principal issues were whether:
- the civil suit was barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act because the admitted historical rent was only ₹20 per month;
- protection under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act continued to apply;
- a tenant who denies the landlord’s title and claims ownership in himself forfeits the tenancy under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act;
- the principle “once a tenant, always a tenant” protected the appellant despite his ownership claim; and
- any substantial question of law arose for consideration in a second appeal.
Appellant’s Arguments
The appellant argued that his ancestors were admittedly tenants and that he had inherited the tenancy.
He relied on the very low rent of ₹20–₹25 per month to argue that the Delhi Rent Control Act applied and that a civil suit for possession was therefore barred.
He further contended that merely denying the landlord’s title could not automatically result in eviction and invoked the principle “once a tenant, always a tenant.”
He also challenged the trial court’s decision to club several issues, the rejection of his application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC seeking to produce old rent receipts, and the grant of mesne profits of ₹1,000 per month.
Respondents’ Case
The plaintiffs relied on the registered sale deed dated 27 January 1992, which established Sahar Bano’s ownership and also specifically recorded Allah Rakkha’s tenancy.
Their case was that although the appellant traced possession through that tenancy, he later clearly repudiated the landlord’s title and claimed ownership in himself.
That repudiation, according to the plaintiffs, brought the tenancy to an end and rendered his continued possession unauthorized.
Analysis of the Law
Section 111(g) TPA — Forfeiture by Disclaimer
The Court focused on Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act.
The provision recognizes forfeiture where the lessee renounces his character as tenant by setting up title in a third person or claiming title in himself, provided the required conditions for determination are met.
The High Court held that the appellant’s pleadings went far beyond a mere dispute about the plaintiffs’ derivative title. He expressly claimed that he was occupying the property as owner because nobody had collected rent or asserted ownership for a long period.
The Court treated this as a clear and unequivocal repudiation of tenancy.
“Once a Tenant, Always a Tenant” Is Not Absolute
The Court rejected the appellant’s reliance on the phrase “once a tenant, always a tenant.”
It held that this principle assists where there is ambiguity regarding the nature of possession, but it cannot protect someone who has clearly and unequivocally renounced tenancy and claimed ownership.
Once the appellant adopted that position, he could not later revert to the ancestral tenancy merely to secure protection under rent-control legislation.
Rent Control and Slum Act Protection
Because the appellant’s tenancy stood forfeited upon his clear repudiation and ownership claim, the Court upheld the finding that he had become an unauthorized occupant.
Accordingly, he could not invoke the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act or Slum Areas legislation to resist the civil possession decree.
Precedent Analysis
Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan v. Municipal Board of Sitapur
The Supreme Court had recognized that even permanent tenancies may be forfeited where there is a clear disclaimer of tenancy or denial of the landlord’s title.
The disclaimer must be clear, unequivocal and brought to the landlord’s knowledge.
Kundan Mal v. Gurudutta
This decision explained that forfeiture by disclaimer rests on the principle that a person cannot approbate and reprobate simultaneously.
Because forfeiture has serious consequences, the denial of tenancy or assertion of adverse title must be unmistakable.
Majati Subbarao v. P.V.K. Krishna Rao
The Court relied on this authority for the proposition that disclaimer and repudiation can expose a tenant to forfeiture, though where the governing rent statute specifically provides a remedy for such repudiation, that statutory remedy may control.
Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand
This case explained that repudiation of the landlord-tenant relationship can expose the tenant to forfeiture under Section 111(g), provided the repudiation is clear and unequivocal.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the historical tenancy itself was not really disputed.
The registered sale deed recorded Allah Rakkha as tenant at ₹20 per month, and the appellant also acknowledged that position.
The real controversy was what happened thereafter.
The appellant had consistently stated in his written statement and reply to the legal notice that he was occupying the property as owner, not as tenant.
The Court therefore held that he could not simultaneously:
- deny the tenancy and claim ownership when resisting the plaintiffs’ title; and
- later revive the same tenancy to claim statutory protection from eviction.
His subsequent ownership assertion had legal consequences independent of the old rent receipts. For that reason, the additional rent receipts sought to be produced under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC would not assist him.
The Court also rejected the procedural challenge regarding clubbing of issues, holding that the issues decided together were interconnected and no prejudice had been caused.
Finally, the award of mesne profits at ₹1,000 per month was upheld.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that the appellant’s clear assertion of ownership amounted to repudiation of tenancy and forfeiture under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act.
He therefore could not subsequently seek the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act or the Slum Areas legislation based on his forefathers’ tenancy.
The Court found that the grounds raised were essentially factual and did not disclose any substantial question of law.
The Regular Second Appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Case Details
Case: Mohd. Mahboob v. Mst. Arshi Qureshi & Anr.
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
Case Number: RSA No. 126 of 2026 with CM Application No. 46845 of 2026.
CNR Number: DLHC010321222026.
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna.
Judgment Reserved: 23 July 2026.
Judgment Pronounced: 7 September 2026.
Impugned Judgment: Judgment and Decree dated 8 July 2026 passed by the District Judge in RCA No. 216 of 2025, affirming the Civil Judge’s decree dated 3 November 2025.
Subject: Forfeiture of tenancy, denial of landlord’s title, Section 111(g) Transfer of Property Act, Delhi Rent Control Act, Slum Areas Act, possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits.
Result: Regular Second Appeal dismissed. The possession decree, arrears and mesne profits in favour of the plaintiffs were upheld.
