The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lease could be forfeited for non-payment of rent based on the interpretation of the lease deed.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

C.M. Appl. No. 39566/2017 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

RFA No. 919/2017

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by plaintiffs in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 17.8.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit so far as relief claimed by the appellants/plaintiffs for possession of the tenanted premises having premises No. 340 (old) B-340 (new), Sector-19, Dwarka, New Delhi.

2. Suit for relief of possession was dismissed by the trial court on the trial court returning a finding that the subject lease deed between the parties dated 9.6.2015 does not contain a clause for forfeiture of the tenancy in case of non-payment of the rent.

3. The facts of the case are that appellants/plaintiffs filed the subject suit claiming possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits, etc. Appellants/plaintiffs pleaded that by a registered lease agreement dated 9.6.2015 the suit premises were let out to the respondent/defendant for a period of 5 years from 1.6.2015 to 1.7.2020. It was pleaded in the plaint that though the period of tenancy had not expired, but the respondent/defendant has defaulted in making payment of rent since the year 2015 and no rent has been paid from October, 2016 to May, 2017.

4. Trial court has held that there is no express clause in the subject lease deed allowing forfeiture of the lease on account of nonpayment of the rent and the trial court held that Clause 7.2 and Clause 8.4 of the lease agreement dated 9.6.2015 cannot be read to mean that forfeiture of lease is allowed for non-payment of rent. These Clauses 7.2 and 8.4 read as under:-

“7.2 That the lessee paying the rent hereby reserved and observing and performing the several covenants and stipulations herein on his part to be observed and performed should peacefully hold and enjoy the premises during the terms of 5 (Five) years without any interruption by the lessor rightfully claiming under or in his trust.

8.4 This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between the parties. The breach of any condition of this agreement is to be considered substantial. If any part or all of any provision of this Agreement is illegal or unenforceable, it may be severed from this Agreement and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue to remain in force.”

5. In my opinion, trial court has clearly erred in holding that Clause 7.2 cannot be interpreted that it does not allow forfeiture of lease for non-payment of rent.

6. In my opinion the very language of Clause 7.2 is that it is only on the respondent/defendant/lessee complying with all the covenants and stipulations in the lease deed that the respondent/defendant/lessee would peacefully hold on the lease premises for the period of five years i.e putting it in other words if the covenants and stipulations in the lease deed are not complied with, of which is the most important of payment of rent, then if the clause of payment of rent was not complied with in such a case the respondent/defendant could not peacefully hold on to the tenanted premises and meaning thereby the tenancy would stand terminated by forfeiture. There has to be a purposive construction of Clause 7.2 inasmuch as any other construction of Clause 7.2, and as has been done by the trial court, will lead to the absurd position that a tenant for years and years will not pay rent and claim that since there is no clause in the lease deed for forfeiture of the lease yet inspite of non-payment of rent, the tenant/lessee can continue in the tenanted premises.

7. I, therefore, hold that Clause 7.2 of the lease deed entitles the appellants/plaintiffs to forfeit the lease on account of non-payment of rent. Suit was, therefore, maintainable for possession on account of lease being forfeited for non-payment of rent.

8. Trial court has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this