IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sharad Manohar, J.
Geetabai Namdeo Daf... Appellant.
Versus
B.D. Manjrekar... Respondent.
Second Appeal No. 136 of 1983, decided on 17-4-1984.
Advocates appeared :
V.P. Tipnis, for appellant-plaintiff.
V.A. Torat, i/b Arvind Nagvekar and Co., for respondent-defendant.
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - LEASE - SECTION 106, 111, 114 - DISTINCTION BETWEEN FORFEITURE AND TERMINATION OF TENANCY - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 114 - RENT ACT NOT APPLICABLE TO PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff let out premises to defendant on lease. Plaintiff terminated tenancy by valid notice under Transfer of Property Act. Defendant claimed relief against forfeiture under section 114 of Transfer of Property Act. Trial court and appellate court dismissed plaintiff's suit for possession.
Finding of the Court:
Tenancy was not governed by Rent Act. Notice of termination of tenancy was lawful. Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act does not apply as there was no forfeiture clause in the agreement of tenancy. Plaintiff's suit for possession was decreed.
Issues: Whether section 114 of Transfer of Property Act applies to a tenancy terminated by notice under section 106.
Ratio Decidendi: Forfeiture and termination of tenancy are two distinct concepts. Forfeiture requires a forfeiture clause in the agreement of tenancy and exercise of the right of forfeiture by the landlord. Termination by notice under section 106 does not require a forfeiture clause or breach of any condition of tenancy. Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act applies only to cases of forfeiture, not to termination by notice.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed. Decree of lower courts set aside. Plaintiff's suit for possession decreed.
2. The facts relating to the appeal are very simple. The suit premises are situate in an area which was not governed by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Rent Act"), till the date of the institution of the suit and for a long time thereafter. The appellant, who shall be referred to hereinafter as the plaintiff, let out the premises on lease to the respondent, who shall be referred to hereinafter as the defendant, a few years before 1974-76. The grievance of the plaintiff was that the defendant was of thrifty habits, which habits he manifested by displaying chronic reluctance for payment of rent. The plaintiff, therefore, terminated his tenancy by a valid notice under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, with effect from 31st January, 1976. The validity of the notice of termination of tenancy is not in dispute. By the notice the defendant was called upon to vacate the premises, but his reluctance to pay rent regularly extended also to vacating of the premises. Ultimately, therefore, the plaintiff had to file a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Thane, for the defendant's eviction.
It is unnecessary to refer to the defendant's defence. It is enough here to state that the plaintiff's principal contention was accepted by the trial Court. The trial Court found that the suit premises were not governed by the Rent Act at all. The trial Court further found that the notice of termination of tenancy was lawful. There remained, therefore, no defence for the defendant to the suit claim. However, he claimed that he should be granted relief against forfeiture. The learned trial Judge held that even though the Rent Act did not apply, on the plaintiff's own showing the suit was governed by he Transfer of Property Act and if that was so, there was the provision of section 114 very much there in the Transfer of Property Act which gave the Court jurisdiction to grant relief to the tenant against forfeiture on the ground of non payment of rent. The defendant was, therefore, allowed to deposit all the arrears of rent in the Court, and purported to grant the relief against forfeiture. In this manner the plaintiff's suit for possession was dismissed by the trial Court.
The same view has been taken and the decree of dismissal has been confirmed by the Appeal Court. Hence this second appeal.
3. I am somewhat unhappy that the law relating to forfeiture of tenancy has been misunderstood by both the courts below. I have no objection to the court's committing mistakes. We all of us do so at one time or the other but the question which I am dealing with should normally have been regarded as one of elementary principle. I am not happy that mistakes are committed by confusion of elementary principle.
The legal position to be noted is that there is a world of difference between liability of the tenant for eviction on the ground of forfeiture of tenancy and his liability on the ground of termination of the tenancy by a notice of termination simpliciter. The law relating to determination of tenancy is incorporated in section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. There are various reasons for determining the tenancy and there exist various modes by which the tenancy comes to an end. If the tenancy is to come to an end by vi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.