In Mohd. Mahboob v. Mst. Arshi Qureshi & Anr., RSA 126/2026 (decided 7 September 2026), Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court dismissed a regular second appeal against concurrent decrees of possession, arrears and damages. The landladies had inherited the property from their predecessor, who purchased it by registered sale deed in 1992; the appellant's father was an old tenant at ₹20 per month. After rent stopped in 2019 and a termination notice followed in 2021, the tenant met the suit by denying the landlord–tenant relationship altogether and claiming ownership. That, the Court held, was a clear and unequivocal repudiation of the tenancy attracting forfeiture under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — stripping the occupant of statutory tenant protections and exposing him to eviction as an unauthorised occupant.
Three generations of a ₹20 tenancy
The property was purchased by the respondents' predecessor through a registered sale deed in 1992, subject to an existing tenancy: the appellant's father held the premises at ₹20 per month. On the owner's death in 2015, her heirs stepped into the landlord's shoes. From about June 2019 the rent stopped. Arrears accumulated to ₹1,36,121, a notice terminating the tenancy issued in December 2021, and the heirs sued for possession, recovery of arrears and damages for use and occupation at ₹1,000 per month.
The tenant's defence did not quibble over quantum or notice. It went for the root: there was, he said, no landlord–tenant relationship at all, and he asserted ownership of the premises in himself. The trial court and the first appellate court both decreed the suit. The second appeal brought the dispute to the High Court.
The repudiation and its price
The High Court's analysis turned on a familiar but often misunderstood distinction. Rent control and general tenancy law give an occupant substantial protection — but every one of those protections presupposes the tenancy. Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act determines a lease by forfeiture where the lessee renounces his character as lessee by claiming title in himself. The appellant had done exactly that: decades of occupation as a tenant, followed by years of non-payment, culminating in a pleaded claim of ownership. That combination, the Court held, was a clear and unequivocal repudiation of the tenancy.
Tenant who disputes terms
Questions the rent, the notice, or which heir may collect — the tenancy is acknowledged, statutory protections and the "once a tenant, always a tenant" principle continue to operate.
Tenant who denies title
Claims to own the premises and refuses to recognise the landlord — the lease forfeits under Section 111(g), rent-law protection falls away, and the occupant faces eviction as an unauthorised occupant with mesne profits.
Significantly, the tenant's own admissions established that the respondents' ancestors were the original landlords. Having entered as a tenant, he could not — without surrendering possession — turn around and contest his landlord's title; and the respondents, as successors of the recorded purchaser, held "a better title than that of a tenant", which is all a possession action requires.
Lessons for landlords and occupants in Delhi
For landlords, the decision underlines the value of the paper trail: the registered sale deed of 1992, the chain of succession, the ledger of unpaid rent and the termination notice together left the defence nowhere to stand. Heirs who inherit tenanted property should promptly notify tenants of the devolution and demand rent in their own names, so that any refusal or ownership claim is documented early.
For occupants, the case is a warning about litigation strategy. A defence of ownership is not a free option to bolt onto a tenancy dispute. Once pleaded, it can cost the tenant the very status that shields him — and second-appellate review offers no rescue from concurrent factual findings of repudiation.
A second appeal under Section 100 CPC is confined to substantial questions of law. Parties aggrieved by findings of fact must fight those battles in the trial court and first appeal; by the RSA stage, the field has usually narrowed to questions such as whether a proved set of facts amounts in law to repudiation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is forfeiture by denial of title under Section 111(g)?
A lease determines by forfeiture where the lessee renounces his character as tenant by setting up title in himself or a third person. The denial must be clear and unequivocal — a tenant who disputes quantum of rent or the identity of heirs entitled to receive it is in a different position from one who claims to own the property outright.
Does the rule "once a tenant, always a tenant" not protect the occupant?
The Court held that the maxim applies where the tenancy itself remains acknowledged though its terms are disputed. Where the occupant explicitly claims ownership and refuses to recognise the landlord's authority, he repudiates the relationship on which the protection depends.
What must a plaintiff-landlord prove in such a suit?
In a possession action against a tenant, the landlord need not prove absolute title against the whole world; it is enough to show a better right to possess than the occupant. Here the tenant's own admissions about the original letting established the relationship his defence sought to deny.
How narrow is a regular second appeal (RSA)?
Under Section 100 CPC, a second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact — such as the existence of a tenancy and the fact of repudiation — cannot be reopened unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.