1. - Heard learned counsels.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 1/11/2010, whereby, the suit for eviction has been decreed in favour of the respondent plaintiff under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act determining the lease on the ground of non-payment of rent.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant defendant, Mr. Sunil Mehta submitted that as per Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act the defendant lessee is entitled to relief from forfeiture for non-payment of rent, since, the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs. 17,570/- on 3/1/2011 after the suit was decreed by the learned trial court on 1/11/2010, the provisions of Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference, will come to the rescue of appellant-defendant.

"114. Relief against forfeiture for non-payment- Where a lease of immovable property has determined by forfeiture for non-payment of rent, and the lessor sues to eject the lessee, if, at the hearing of the suit, the lessee pays or tenders to the lessor the rent in arrear, together with interest thereon and his full costs of the suit, or gives such security as the Court thinks sufficient for making such payment within fifteen days, the Court may, in lieu of making a decree for ejectment, pass an order relieving the lessee against the forfeiture; and thereupon the lessee shall hold the property leased as if the forfeiture had not occurred."

4. A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act would clearly show that it is at the time of hearing of suit itself, if such suit has been filed for ejectment by the lessor on the ground of non-payment of rent, the lessee either pays or tenders to the lessor the entire rent in arrear, together with interest thereon and its full costs of the suit or gives such security as the Court thinks sufficient for making such payment within fifteen days, in such circumstances, the Court may, in lieu of making decree for ejectment pass an order relieving the lessee against the forfeiture and thereupon the lessee shall hold the property leased as if the forfeiture had not occurred.

5. In the present case, nothing of this sort in terms of compliance with the provisions of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act was done at the time of filing of the suit. On the other hand, such payment of arrears of rent was made by the defendant tenant after the decree has been passed by the trial court, admittedly, on 3/1/2011. This cannot be said to be in terms of Section 114 of the Act, therefore, this Court in appeal, which even though technically may be treated as continuation of suit, cannot grant such relief. The purpose of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act is to avoid ejectment decree if the defendant tenant or the lessee makes a complete surrender and not only makes the payment of entire arrears of rent along with interest thereon for delay in payment of rent but also the costs of the such suit and thus invokes the discretion of learned trial court to release him from forfeiture. If all such amount are actually paid or sufficient security, in the opinion of trial court, is furnished then in its discretion, the trial court may pass appropriate orders giving relief from the forfeiture in favour of lessee. The point of time for making such compliance and praying for relief is important. The purpose of Section 114 of the Act is not to continue such possibility of granting relief to the lessee even before the appellate forums. Therefore, prayer of learned counsel for the appellant defendant before this Court that benefit of Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act may be given to the defendant at this stage, cannot be accepted and is liable to be rejected and same is accordingly rejected.

6. Otherwise on other counts, since the lease in question has been rightly determined by serving notice upon the defendant under Section 106 and 107 of the Act, the eviction decree is valid in law and no valid excep