A lease does not automatically terminate upon the liquidation of a company unless there is a provision for re-entry in the lease and the lessor gives a valid notice of their intention to determine the lease.

( 1 ) THIS is an application on behalf of one of the lessors for an order that the liquidator do give possession to the lessors of the demised land. The application is made by one of the lessors and is supported by two others. It is opposed by Srimati Usha Bala Dassi, the fourth lessor.

( 2 ) THE question is whether the lease has come to an end. The lease was granted on 17th July, 1928, to the company which is in liquidation, and contains, among others, the following clause:"in case the company goes to liquidation voluntarily or otherwise, this lease shall cease to be operative and the company shall forthwith make over possession of the abad to the proprietors. "'abad' is the property in question.

( 3 ) THE company went into voluntary liquidation on 2nd May, 1950. Srimati Usha Bala made an application for the compulsory winding up of the company. The application was admitted by this Court. In due course the winding up order was made. The date of the order is 11th December, 1950. The liquidator is an advocate of this Court and is in possession of the property.

( 4 ) IT is contended on behalf of the lessors other than Usha Bala that the lease has determined. The contention of Usha Bala and the liquidator is that the lease has not determined.

( 5 ) THE decision of the question turns on Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. The material portion of that section is as follows:"a lease of immoveable property determines; (a) by efflux of the time limited thereby; (b) where such time is limited conditionally, on the happening of some event by the happening of such event. (g) by forfeiture; that is to say; (1) in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that on breaeh thereof the lessor may re-enter;. . . . . . or (2) in case the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself; or (3) the lessee is adjudicated an insolvent and the lease provides that the lessor may re-enter on the happening of such event; and in any of these cases the lessor or his transferee gives notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease. "sub-clause (g) before it was amended by the amending Act XX of 1929 was as follows:" (g) by forfeiture; that is to say. (1) in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that on breach thereof the lessor may re-enter or the lease shall become void; or (2) in case the lessee renounces his character as such. by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself; and in either case the lessor or his transferee does some act showing his intention to determine the lease. "

( 6 ) BEFORE the amending Act of 1929, it was only necessary for the lessor to do 'some act showing his intention to determine the lease'. There was a conflict of decisions in the several High Courts of India as to the point of time when the intention was to be shown. By the amendments made in 1929, the conflict has been set at rest.

( 7 ) THE question is, which of the two sub-clauses applies to the case under consideration sub-clause (b), or sub-clause (g ). Acceding to the petitioner sub-clause (b) applies. On the other hand on behalf of Usha Bala and the liquidator it is contended that sub-Clause (g) applies.

( 8 ) IN Woodfall on 'landlord and Tenant', we find this statement of law:"a lease may be determined by entry or ejectment for a forfeiture incurred either by (1) breach of a condition therein in the lease, or (2) for a breach of any covenant, in case (and in case only) the lease contain a condition or proviso for re-entry for a breach of such covenant. "

( 9 ) SOMERVELL L. J. , in 'maley v. Fearn', (1946) 2 All E R 583 at p. 584, said that this was an accurate statement of the law.

( 10 ) THAT then is the law in England. But is that the law in India?

( 11 ) READING Section 111 it seems that no distinction has been made in India between a condition and what is called a covenant in English La