Breach of the terms of a lease agreement, including non-payment of rent and unauthorized assignments, can lead to forfeiture of the lease, and the lessee may not be entitled to relief against forfeiture if the breaches are not capable of remedy.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution in respect of a decision of a Division Bench of this court affirming the trial court's decree for possession and mesne profits.

( 2 ) THE suit was instituted in the court of the Sub-ordinate Judge at Alipore by the plaintiff Kanhyalal Kanodia, since deceased and now represented by his widow Sm. Santi Debi and minor son Chandra Kumar, opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, his heirs and legal representatives.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff asked for a decree for possession and mesne profits against three persons, P. N. Roy, Kanti Narayan Misser and the petitioner Indraloke Studio Ltd. , impleaded respectively as defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Kanti Narayan Misser did not contest the proceedings, but the said P. N. Roy and the petitioner Indraloke Studio did, and a decree was made directing delivery of khas possession and payment of mesne profits for which separate proceedings were directed for ascertainment of the amount.

( 4 ) THE petitioner Indraioke Studio Ltd. alone appealed against the decision of the Subordinate Judge but the appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court which affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. It is against this appellate judgment that the petitioner seeks to appeal to the Supreme Court.

( 5 ) THE dispute relates to a property known and numbered as premises Nos. 20 and 21 Babu Ram Ghose Road, Tollygunge, containing extensive grounds and structures upon them. The plaintiff's case was that on November 24, 1944 he had granted two sub-leases to defendants Nos. 1 and 2, P. N. Roy and Kanti Narayan Misser for a term of ten years, and on the expiry of the said term, for a further period of five years, at the option of the lessees, on terms and conditions embodied in the two registered instruments of lease. The premises were on the date of the sub-leases under military occupation and it was provided that the leases would commence upon the property being released by the military authorities. The said indentures provided: inter alia for the payment of specified monthly rents in respect of the two premises, and stipulated that the rents were to be paid regularly in advance within the 15th day of each month for which they were payable, whether such rents were formally demanded or not. It was also provided that during the period of lease the defendants would have no power to assign, sub-let or sub-demise the said premises in any manner whatever without the written consent of the plaintiff, first had and obtained, that the lessor would have the power to determine the leases if the lessees did not pay rent for two consecutive months and that on breach of any of the covenants or conditions, the leases would "ipso facto" determine and the plaintiff would thereupon be entitled to re-enter the property. The premises being derequisitioned on March 31, 1947, the leases commenced on and from April 1, 1947.

( 6 ) THE plaintiff alleged that the said defendants P. N. Roy and Kanti Narayan Misser had failed and neglected to pay rents ever since the commencement of the leases and had committed another breach of covenant by making unauthorised assignments of their right, title and interest in the premises. On December 19, 1946 defendant No. 2 Kanti Narayan Misser had made an assignment in favour of one Rohini Kumar Sen, Gupta without having previously obtained the plaintiff's consent to the transfer. The said Rohini Kumar Sen Gupta thereafter transferred his interest on August 14, 1947, in favour of the petitioner Indraloke Studio Ltd. defendant No. 3, and on the same date (14-8-1947) the said P. N. Roy, defendant No. 1 also assigned his right, title and interest in the premises in favour of the petitioner without previously obtaining the plaintiffs consent to such assignment. The plaintiff's case accordingly was that there had occurred breaches of two of the conditions provided for in the instruments of lease, wi