Tenant Who Claims Adverse Possession Cannot Seek Shelter Under Rent Control: Bombay High Court

“Tenant Claimed Title In Himself, Renouncing Character As Tenant – Forfeiture Attracted Under Section 111(g) Of Transfer Of Property Act”, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), upheld concurrent decrees of eviction passed by the lower courts, ruling that a tenant who denies the landlord’s title and asserts ownership over the premises—either through alleged oral gift or adverse possession—forfeits tenancy rights under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Justice Rohit W. Joshi dismissed the Second Appeal filed by the legal representatives of the original defendant, confirming that no substantial question of law was involved.

The crux of the decision lies in the tenant’s conduct of asserting hostile ownership over the tenanted premises, which the Court held to be “a clear renunciation of the character as tenant,” thereby attracting forfeiture of tenancy. Significantly, the Court also ruled that subsequent rent demands made “without prejudice” to the forfeiture claim did not constitute waiver under Section 112 of the Act.

“Forfeiture Not Avoided Merely Because Title Was Disputed In Notice Addressed To Vendor” – Court Declines Technical Objection

The case arose out of a landlord-tenant dispute, where the landlord, Shri Durgashankar Agrawal, had acquired ownership of the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 8th September 1992. The tenant, Shri Anandrao Awaghad, had earlier issued a notice dated 15th September 1992—not to the landlord but to the vendor of the landlord—claiming ownership of the premises based on an alleged oral gift and, alternatively, by adverse possession, stating that “after the demise of the original owner Mahadev Prasad, the defendant was in peaceful settled possession for more than 16 years and had been paying municipal taxes as the lawful owner.”

Challenging the subsequent eviction decrees, counsel for the appellant-tenant argued that the forfeiture was legally untenable since the notice asserting ownership was addressed to the landlord’s vendor, not the landlord himself. He contended that under law, adverse possession must be claimed against the true owner, not an intermediary.

Rejecting this argument, Justice Joshi observed that “the defendant not only disputed the title of the vendor of the plaintiff, but has clearly stated that the proposed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff will not confer any title upon him.” The Court held that the tenant's claim of ownership, even in anticipation of transfer, amounted to a direct challenge to the landlord's title.

The Court quoted: “The contents of the notice unequivocally indicate that the defendant/tenant had not only disputed the title of his landlord, but had claimed title in himself. For both these reasons, the defendant/tenant has clearly renounced his character as a tenant, as contemplated under Section 111(g)(2) of the Transfer of Property Act.”

Demand For Rent With “Without Prejudice” Clause Does Not Waive Forfeiture – Section 112 Not Attracted, Says Court

Another central issue was whether the landlord had waived his right of forfeiture under Section 112 by accepting rent after the forfeiture notice. The tenant’s counsel relied heavily on the judgment in Chandrashekhar S. Gadgil v. Rameshprasad Shukla, arguing that demanding rent after alleging forfeiture amounted to a waiver.

But the High Court drew a clear distinction. In the present case, the landlord had issued subsequent letters dated 10th November 1992 and 10th April 1993, explicitly stating that rent was being accepted “without prejudice” and was adjusted toward damages. Additionally, the suit for eviction was filed promptly thereafter on 30th November 1993.

Justice Joshi held that: “Demand and acceptance of rent by the landlord will not amount to waiver of right to claim eviction on account of forfeiture of tenancy.”

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Sarup Singh Gupta v. S. Jagdish Singh (2006) 4 SCC 205 and C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran (2006) 1 SCC 228, reinforcing the principle that rent acceptance under protest or without prejudice does not constitute waiver.

Distinguishing Chandrashekhar Gadgil, the Court clarified that in that case, there was a five-year delay after the forfeiture notice, followed by invocation of Rent Act grounds, which amounted to an implied waiver. In contrast, in the present case, the landlord's intent to enforce forfeiture was never abandoned.

Tenant Lost Protection Of Rent Control After Claiming Ownership – Legal Position Conceded And Applied

Significantly, the tenant sought protection under the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. However, both courts below and the High Court uniformly held that such protection is unavailable to a tenant who forfeits his tenancy by denying the landlord’s title and asserting ownership.

The Court observed: “Once a tenant forfeits his character by denying title and claiming ownership, protection under rent control legislation is unavailable.”

Counsel for the tenant conceded the legal position but contended that the forfeiture had not validly occurred. The Court rejected this argument based on the content of the tenant’s own communication and conduct.

No Substantial Question Of Law In Second Appeal – But Court Grants Time To Vacate Based On Equity

Upholding the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, Justice Joshi held that the appeal raised no substantial question of law. The findings were based on “correct application of law” and no “perversity or legal error” was found.

However, taking into account the long-standing possession and residential nature of the property, the Court granted six months' time to vacate. The tenant, through counsel, gave an undertaking to vacate by 15th July 2026.

The judgment concluded: “Although the request is opposed, in the considered opinion of this Court, it will be appropriate to grant reasonable time to vacate the property. The suit property is a residential house of the appellant and the appellant is residing therein for a very long time.”

Date of Decision: 09/01/2026