This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 25/77 by the learned Assistant District Judge, Jorhat on 30.11.78 affirming those passed by the learned Munsiff, Sibsagar in Title Suit No.2/74. The plaintiff-appellant instituted Title Suit No.2/74 against the defendant-respondents for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land described in Schedule to the plaint and for khas possession thereof by evicting the principal defendant. The plaintiff's case was that he became the owner of the suit land by purchase thereof and that the principal defendants were allowed to cultivate the suit land as 'Adhiar' and they delivered 'Adhi' paddy till 1967. Thereafter, the defendants having stopped delivery of 'Adhi' paddy to him. The plaintiff filed Adhi Case No.6 of 1969-70 for recovery of arrear paddy and for eviction of the defendants from the suit land before the Adhi Conciliation Board. The principal defendants contested the case before the Adhi Conciliation Board clearly denying that they were cultivating the .land as Adhiar and they repudiated the title of the plaintiff and claimed their ownership over the suit land. The Adhi Conciliation Board however, decided the case in favour of the plaintiff. ,Against the said decision of the Adbi Concili­ation Board the principal defendants filed Adhi Misc. Appeal No. 35/71 in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge. The learned Assistant District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order or tha Adhi Conciliation Board by judgment and order dated 26.6.72. The plaintiff thereafter filed Title Suit No.2/74 in the Court of the learned Munsiff, Sibsagar for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and for khas possession thereof after evicting the defendants. The defendants contested the Title Suit No.2/74 by filing written statement. la the written statement the defendants denied the contention of the plaintiff that they had been possessing the suit land as 'Adhiar'. In the written statement they repudiated the title of the plaintiff over the suit land and asserted their title over the suit land. On the pleadings of the parties, number of issues were framed. The learned Munsiff after conclusion of the hearing and on appreciation of evidences on records, by judgment and decree dated 20.6.77 passed in Title Suit No.2/74 declared the plaintiff's right, title and interest over the suit land. On the pleadings of the parties, number of issues were framed. The learned Munsiff after conclusion of the hearing and on appreciation of evidences on records, by judgment and decree dated 20.6.77 passed in Title Suit No.2/74 declared the plaintiff's right, title and interest over the suit land. However, by the said judgment decided the Issue No.13 against the plaintiff rejecting the prayer for a decree for khas possession on the ground that as per pleadings of the plaintiff, the principal defendants having come to occupy the suit land as 'Adhiar' they became tenants under the Assam (Temporary Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 and could not be evicted from the suit land. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the learned Munsiff in respect of Issue No.13, namely-"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to khas possession as claimed ?"- against him, the plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No.25/77 in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge, Jorhat. No appeal nor any cross-objection was filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff deciding other issues in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Assistant District Judge by the impugned judgment and decree upheld the decision of the learned Munsiff as regards Issue No. 13. The plaintiff, thereafter, has approached this Court in this second appeal. The only question needs to be decided in this appeal is whether the principal defendants who renounced the lease and claimed title over the suit land and denied and repudiated the title of the plaintiff before the Adhi Conciliation Board as well as in the Title Suit are still entitled to be regarded as tenant and to protection under the Assam (Temporary Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 after the plaintiff's right, title and interest had been declared over the suit land. In Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act infection 111 (g) (I) it is provided that a lease of immovable property is determined by forfeiture in case lessee renounces his character as such, by setting up a title in a third party or by claiming title in himself. However, section 117 of the T.P. Act provides that none of the provisions of Chapter V applies to lease for agricultural purpose except so far (State) Government by notification (published in Official Gazette) declares of all or any such provisions to be so applicable. However, section 117 of the T.P. Act provides that none of the provisions of Chapter V applies to lease for agricultural purpose except so far (State) Government by notification (published in Official Gazette) declares of all or any such provisions to be so applicable. In the instant case the suit land is admittedly leased out to the defendants to cultivate the land as Adhiar for agricultural purpose and there is nothing to show that the Government notification has made section 111 (2) (g) of the T.P. Act applicable to leases for agricultural purpose. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ease of Md. Amir Khan vs Municipal Board etc, AIR 1965 SC 1923 has concurred the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Maharaja of Jaipur vs. Rukmini (AIR 1919 PC I) wherein it has been laid down that the principles embodied in section 111 (2) (g) of the T.P. Act are equally applicable to tenancies to which provisions of T.P. Act does not apply on the ground that the same being in consonance with justice, equity and good conscience. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Basanta .Kumar Nath vs. Kaksmamani Natfa & others (AIR 1968 Assam and Nagaland 52) held-the defendants (tenants) who denied the title of the plaintiff in the suit filed for recovery of the rent of the tenanted land, must be treated as trespassers on the suit land on and from the date they denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit land in the rent suit. In the said suit the lease of the land was for agricultural purpose. 'A' the landlord instituted Rent Suit No. 40 of 1949 for realisation of arrear rent from 'B' the tenant. But in the said rent suit 'B' denied title of 'A' the landlord and renounced tenancy under him over the suit land. The suit was decreed for recovery of rent. 'B' filed appeal against the decree and the learned appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree and asked the landlord 'A' to establish his right, title and interest over the suit land. Thereafter, 'A' instituted Title Suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land, and recovery of khas possession by evicting 'B'. 'B' filed appeal against the decree and the learned appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree and asked the landlord 'A' to establish his right, title and interest over the suit land. Thereafter, 'A' instituted Title Suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land, and recovery of khas possession by evicting 'B'. In the second appeal filed by 'B' against the judgment and decree, a Division Bench of this Court held in the aforesaid case, Basanta Kumar Nath supra, that 'B' the defendant, denied title of 'V the plaintiff-landlord in the written statement in the Rent Suit No.4t/49 must be treated as trespassers on the said land on and from the date of such denial and the plaintiff 'A' was entitled to have decree for khas possession of the suit land. Tenant or Adhiar has an obligation and duty to pay rent or Adhi-share lawfully due to t .e landlord. But, if such tenant does not pay rent or Adhi-share and repudiates title of the landlord over the land or premises and disclaim tenancy under the landlord and asserts his title of third party thereon and thereby subjects the landlord to litigations for establishment of his right, title and interest over the tenanted land/premises, he must suffer the consequences in case of ultimate success of the landlord in establishing his title over the tenanted suit land/premises. It will be inequitable and unjust to treat such person still tenant of the land/premises in question and/or to extend protective umbrella of tenancy laws to him. In such contingencies whether the provisions of section 111 (2) (g) of the T.P. Act applies or not in the tenancy, in consonance with equity, justice and good conscience, it is to be held that such tenant has forfeited his tenancy right over the land or premises in question and rendered himself as a trespasser thereon on and from the date he denied/repudiated the title of the landlord disclaiming tenancy under the landlord. In the instant case, admittedly, the principal defendants in Adhi Case No.6/69-70 denied/repudiated the title of the landlord-plaintiff over the suit land and disclaiming the tenancy set up the claim of title over the suit land in clear and unequivocal terms. They took the same stand in the Title Suit also. In the instant case, admittedly, the principal defendants in Adhi Case No.6/69-70 denied/repudiated the title of the landlord-plaintiff over the suit land and disclaiming the tenancy set up the claim of title over the suit land in clear and unequivocal terms. They took the same stand in the Title Suit also. As such, although the provisions of section 111 of T.P. Act do not apply to the tenancy in respect of the suit land, equity, justice and good conscience demand that the principal defendants has to be held to have forfeited their tenancy right over the suit land and rendered themselves as trespassers over the suit land on and from the date of filing written statement in the Adhi Case No. 6/1969-70. Conssequetly, the plaintiff, whose right, title and interest over the suit land have been decreed, is entitled to the decree for khas possession over the suit land by evicting the defendants therefrom. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs throughout and the plaintiff's suit is decreed for recovery of khas possession of the suit land by evicting the defendants therefrom.