Forfeiture of lease for denial of title applies even to a permanent lease, with arrears limited by limitation.

Denial of the landlord's title by a lessee was treated as attracting forfeiture, and the Court held that the forfeiture was not waived by later conduct. Bringing and prosecuting the suit was sufficient to show an intention to determine the lease. The Court further held that a lease in perpetuity is not immune from forfeiture under the Transfer of Property Act, because the lessor retains a reversionary interest and the statutory scheme does not exclude forfeiture merely due to permanence. Arrears of rent were restricted by limitation to the three-year period before suit, while possession and mesne profits followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the defendant's pleadings and subsequent evidence amounted to denial of the plaintiff's title so as to incur forfeiture of the lease and whether that forfeiture was waived; (ii) whether the plaintiff had shown an intention to determine the lease; (iii) whether a permanent lease is nonetheless forfeitable under the Transfer of Property Act; (iv) the extent to which arrears of rent could be recovered having regard to limitation.

Issue (i): whether the defendant's pleadings and subsequent evidence amounted to denial of the plaintiff's title so as to incur forfeiture of the lease and whether that forfeiture was waived.

Analysis: The denial of tenancy and assertion of ownership in the earlier Small Cause Court proceedings were treated as the defendant's own pleadings, not as unauthorised statements of her pleaders, and the same denial was reaffirmed in her evidence. The subsequent conduct in those proceedings did not amount to a waiver of the forfeiture.

Conclusion: The denial of title was attributed to the defendant, and the resulting forfeiture was not waived.

Issue (ii): whether the plaintiff had shown an intention to determine the lease.

Analysis: Bringing the present action and prosecuting it against the defendant was treated as a sufficient manifestation of an intention to determine the lease within the meaning of the statutory scheme governing determination of leases by forfeiture.

Conclusion: The plaintiff did show an intention to determine the lease.

Issue (iii): whether a permanent lease is nonetheless forfeitable under the Transfer of Property Act.

Analysis: The Court rejected the analogy drawn from English real property law and held that a lease in perpetuity still leaves a reversionary interest in the lessor. Reading the provisions governing leases and their determination together, the statutory scheme did not exclude forfeiture merely because the lease was permanent; the rule that a tenant who impugns the landlord's title renders the tenancy liable to forfeiture was applied.

Conclusion: A permanent lease is forfeitable, and the lease in question was determined by forfeiture.

Issue (iv): the extent to which arrears of rent could be recovered having regard to limitation.

Analysis: The claim for arrears was limited by the statutory period of limitation, and no sufficient basis was shown for extending the recovery further back under the saving provision invoked.

Conclusion: Recovery of arrears was confined to the three-year period prior to the institution of the suit.

Final Conclusion: The defendant's denial of the landlord's title operated as forfeiture, that forfeiture was not waived, the lease was liable to determination notwithstanding its permanent character, and the plaintiff was entitled to possession, mesne profits and limited arrears of rent.

Ratio Decidendi: A lessee who denies the landlord's title incurs forfeiture under the law governing leases, and a perpetual or permanent lease is not immune from such forfeiture when the statutory conditions for determination are satisfied.

---