Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
RAMENDRA MOHAN DATTA
MAHENDRALAL AMBALAL GANDHI - Appellant
Versus
SAMASTIPUR CENTRAL SUGAR CO. LTD. - Respondent
. Of .
Decided On : April 28, 1968
LANDLORD AND TENANT - Lease - Restrictive clause - Transfer of tenancy - Notice to quit - Forfeiture - Relief against forfeiture - Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss. 5, 111 (g), 112, 114.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, the lessor, filed a suit against the defendant, the lessee, for possession of the suit premises and mesne profits. The defendant had transferred the tenancy in breach of a restrictive clause in the lease. The plaintiff had served a notice of forfeiture on the defendant, which the defendant claimed was invalid. The defendant also served a notice to quit, which it later purported to withdraw. The defendant claimed relief against forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the transfer of tenancy by the defendant was in breach of the restrictive clause in the lease and that the notice of forfeiture served by the plaintiff was valid. The court also held that the defendant could not withdraw the notice to quit without the consent of the plaintiff. The court further held that the defendant was not entitled to relief against forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendant transferred any portion of the demised premises to M/s. Patiala Biscuit Manufacturers Private Ltd. or to South East Asia Industries Private Ltd. 2. Has the tenancy of the Defendant No. 1 been determined by the notice dated November 28, 1963, as alleged in para 9 of the plaint. 3. What is the effect of the letter dated May 30, 1964, by which the Defendant No. 1 wanted to withdraw the notice to quit served by them on March 30, 1964. 4. Was the defendant ready and willing to pay all arrears of rent to the plaintiff as alleged in para 14 of the written statement. 5. What relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The word 'transfer' in the restrictive clause in the lease should be construed with reference to its own context and includes parting with possession of the demised portion of the premises and thereby to allow the transferee to enjoy the possession thereof in the place and stead of the transferor. (Para 21) 2. A notice of forfeiture is valid if it clearly expresses the intention to determine the lease and gives the tenant a reasonable time to vacate the premises. (Para 31) 3. A notice to quit served by a tenant cannot be withdrawn without the consent of the landlord. (Para 43) 4. Relief against forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act is discretionary and will not be granted if the tenant disputes the validity of the claim for arrears of rent resulting in forfeiture of the lease. (Para 49)
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff for possession of the suit premises and mesne profits. The plaintiff was also entitled to the costs of the suit.
( 1 ) THE Defendant No. 1 was a lessee under the plaintiff by virtue of an Indenture of Lease dated January 12, 1961, in respect of the south-western section of the second floor of the premises No. 10, Bentinck Street, Calcutta, for a period of 21 years at a rent of Rs. 815 per month. One of the restrictive clauses in the said lease provided that the defendant would not be able "to sign the lease, transfer, sublet, or underlet in any from whatsoever the demises or any part thereof without the lessor's previous consent in writing".
( 2 ) IN 1961, the plaintiff gave consent to the Defendant No. 1 to sublet a portion of the demised premises to Messrs Edward Keventers (Successors) Private Ltd. subject to the condition that at the expiration or sooner determination of the said lease the Defendant No. 1 would remain bound to give back possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff free of such occupant, namely, Messrs Edward Keventers (Successors) Private Ltd.
( 3 ) THE plaintiff contends that on July 4, 1963, the Defendant No. 1 shifted its office to No. 1, Netaji Subhas Road, First floor, Calcutta, and sometimes prior to that date the Defendant No. 1 wrongfully transferred the residue of the suit premises, besides the portion sublet as aforesaid to Messrs Edward Keventers (Successors) Private Ltd. , in favour of two companies by the names of Patiala Biscuit Manufacturers Private Ltd. and South East Asia Industries Private Ltd. Thereupon the plaintiff caused a notice to be served upon the Defendant No. 1 on November 28, 1963, determining the said lease and calling upon the Defendant No. 1 "to make over vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff immediately upon the expiry of the 31st day of December, 1963".
( 4 ) THE plaintiff's further contention is that the Defendant No. 1 defaulted in payment of rent for the months of July, August, September and Officer-in-Charge, 1963 and as such, the lease was determined and/or forfeited by that same notice.
( 5 ) BY a notification dated January 14, 1964, issued by the Central Government in its Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Department of Food), the management of the undertaking of the Defendant no. 1, known as Samastipur Central Sugar Co. Ltd. , was taken over by the Central Government, and the Central Government in its turn appointed one Sri J. P. Goel as the authorized controller and authorized him to take over the management of the Defendant No. 1. The Union of India has been made the Defendant No. 2 and the Sri J. P. Goel has been made the Defendant No. 3 herein.
( 6 ) BY a notice dated March 30, 1964, the secretary of the Defendant No. 1 intimated the plaintiff that the Defendant No. 1 would quit and vacate the suit premises No. 10 Bentinck Street, Second floor, Calcutta-1, on the last day of the month of June 1964 on the expiry of which relationship of learned and tenant between the two parties in respect of the aforesaid premises would cease. The plaintiff was requested to take possession of the last day of the month of June 1964 in default of which it was intimated that the Defendant No. 1 would not be liable in respect of the said lease. It was specifically mentioned in the said notice that the company had been taken over by the Government of India, in its Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Department of Food), New Delhi-2, under the Defence of India Rules, 1962.
( 7 ) IT will be observed from the above that by that letter the Defendant No. 1 wanted to quit and vacate on the last day of June, 1964, but before that time expired, by another letter written on or about May 30, 1964 the secretary of the Defendant No. 1 intimated their intention to revoke the previous letter dated March 30, 1964, terminating the said lease. It was further intimated that their present decision was to continue the tenancy under the lease. By letter dated June 5, 1964, the plaintiff protested. Thereafter, certain correspondence followed and ultimately after serv
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
