Facts: The respondent (plaintiff) is the owner of a shop property leased in 1960 to Late Mohammad Siddique. The plaintiff alleged that during the lease, the tenant compelled his servant to include the name "M/s. Rafique Kirana Stores" (a proprietorship concern) on rent receipts. Subsequently, the tenant and his heirs (appellants/defendants) claimed that the firm was the actual tenant, not Mohammad Siddique in his individual capacity. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession and arrears of rent, arguing that by claiming the tenancy belonged to the firm, the tenant had either impliedly surrendered the lease under Section 111(f) or incurred forfeiture under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, by disclaiming his character as a tenant.
Procedural Posture: The Trial Court dismissed the suit for possession, holding that the firm was the tenant and no forfeiture occurred. The First Appellate Court reversed this, granting a decree for possession and mesne profits on the grounds that Mohammad Siddique was the individual tenant and his denial of such status constituted a disclaimer leading to forfeiture. The defendants challenged this reversal in a Second Appeal before the High Court.
Issue: Does a tenant’s assertion that the tenancy is held in the name of his sole proprietorship concern, rather than his individual name, constitute a renunciation of character or a disclaimer of the landlord's title under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
Holding: No. The Court held that such a plea does not amount to forfeiture or surrender. The decree for possession was set aside, and the Trial Court's dismissal was restored.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 111(g)(2) requires a tenant to renounce his character by "setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title himself". Here, the defendants never disputed the plaintiff's ownership or set up title in themselves. Since a proprietorship concern is not a juristic person but merely a trade name for the individual, asserting the firm's tenancy is legally synonymous with asserting the individual's tenancy. The Court noted that the defendants likely adopted this stance to avoid allegations of sub-letting after the tenant's sons joined as partners. Because there was no challenge to the landlord-tenant relationship itself, the essential ingredients for forfeiture or implied surrender were not met.