https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288969 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. en-us Fri, 12 Feb 1897 00:00:00 +0521 Wed, 08 Jul 2020 12:04:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288969 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 12 Feb 1897 00:00:00 +0521 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288969