ANANDRAO BABASAHEB AWAGHAD (DEAD) THR. LRS. SANJAY ANANDRAO AWAGHAD AND ANOTHER v. DURGASHANKAR S/O GHANSHYAM AGRAWAL
Forfeiture of Tenancy: Tenant's Claim of Adverse Possession and Disputing Landlord's Title Results in Forfeiture; Landlord's Acceptance of Rent 'Without Prejudice' Does Not Waive Right to Evict.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:431
Decision Date: 09-01-2026
List of Laws
Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949; Adverse Possession; Forfeiture of Tenancy; Waiver
- Facts: The respondent/plaintiff sued the appellant/defendant for eviction. The defendant claimed ownership based on an alleged oral gift from the original owner and adverse possession, disputing the plaintiff's vendor's title. The plaintiff argued the defendant forfeited tenancy by claiming ownership and questioning the vendor's title. The defendant argued that the notice disputing title was to the vendor, not the plaintiff, and that demanding rent after the alleged forfeiture waived the right to claim possession.
- Procedural Posture: The Trial Court decreed eviction, which the First Appellate Court confirmed. The defendant filed a Second Appeal challenging the concurrent decrees for eviction.
- Issue: Did the defendant forfeit his tenancy under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act by disputing the title of the plaintiff's vendor and claiming ownership through adverse possession? Did the plaintiff waive the right to claim eviction by demanding and accepting rent after the alleged forfeiture?
- Holding: The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal, holding that the defendant forfeited his tenancy and the plaintiff did not waive the right to claim eviction.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the defendant, by disputing the vendor's title and claiming ownership, renounced his character as a tenant under Section 111(g)(2) of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court found that the defendant not only disputed the title of the vendor but also asserted his own title. The Court also held that the plaintiff's demand and acceptance of rent were "without prejudice to the claim of forfeiture," thus not constituting a waiver. The Court distinguished the case from Chandrashekhar S. Gagdgil Vs. Rameshprasad s/o Madhavprasad Shukla, noting that in the present case, the landlord consistently maintained the claim of forfeiture. The Court relied on Sarup Singh Gupta Vs. S. Jagdish Singh, stating that mere acceptance of rent does not amount to waiver when the landlord expressly states that the demand for rent was made without prejudice to the claim of forfeiture.
🔒 For Members Only