Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 5188
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
SRI. SODE VADIRAJA MUTT – Appellant
Versus
SRI. RAVIRAJA HEBBAR – Respondent
WP 5650 of 2020
Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act allows courts to relieve lessees from forfeiture based on equitable considerations, emphasizing the need to assess tenant conduct.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 114 - Ejectment proceedings - The defendant sought relief against lease forfeiture, having made payments due under the lease. The trial court allowed the application, emphasizing the defendant's continuous possession since 1970 and compliance with payment obligations. (Paras 2, 3)
(B) Equitable Jurisdiction - The court noted that Section 114 provides discretion to relieve a lessee from forfeiture, which is not a statutory protection but an equitable remedy. The court must consider the conduct of the tenant in exercising this discretion. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for possession and recovery of dues against the defendant, who had been in possession since 1970. The defendant made payments due before the hearing, leading to the trial court's decision to allow the application for relief against forfeiture.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's order was upheld, indicating that the suit proceedings must continue to address all reliefs sought.
Issues: The main issues included whether the trial court's order effectively terminated the suit proceedings and the implications of the defendant's payment on the lease.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court's discretion under Section 114 of the TP Act must consider the tenant's conduct and that equitable relief does not preclude arbitration for lease disputes.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with observations on the need for further proceedings.
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.I in O.S.No.81/2019 dated 12.06.2019 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, the petitioner is before this Court.
2. I.A.No.I is filed by the defendant to accept the security furnished and lieu of making and decree for ejectment pass an order relieving the defendant against leased forfeiture of the lease in the ends of justice and equity. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit seeking a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing her to surrender vacant possession of the plaint A schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, a decree directing the defendants to pay plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,266.67 as detailed in schedule B of the plaint and directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff future mesne profits from 01.02.2014 till delivery of vacant possession of the plaint property at Rs.200 per month or at such rate to be determined by the Court after holding necessary enquiry and also to pay the plaintiff cost of lawyer's registered notice dated 09.03.2012.
3. In the suit, the present I.A.No.I came to be filed by the defendant to accept the security furnished and lieu of making and decree for ejectment pass an order relieving the defendant against leased forfeiture of the lease in the ends of justice and equity. The trial Court had allowed the application and had observed that the document clearly establishes that since 1970, the father of the defendant was in possession of the suit schedule property. After the death of his father, the defendant continued to be in possession of the property till today and further document reveals that till 2007 the defendant has made the payment of rent. From 2007 onwards, the defendant was due of payment of rent. Admittedly, the suit is filed on 07.02.2014 and the summons to the defendant was served on 19.03.2014 and the defendant appeared on 03.04.2014. In the meanwhile, the defendant has made the payment on 26.02.2014 through DD.No.114198 and the same was sent to the plaintiff Mutt. Further, the document discloses that on 10.03.2014, the plaintiff Mutt has returned the DD by saying that they have already filed suit against the defendant in O.S.No.81/2014. The trial Court had observed that according to Section 114 of TP Act, if at all the lessee has made a payment together with interest and his full cost of the suit or give security before 1st hearing, the lessee shall hold the property leased as if the forfeiture had not occurred. Since the defendant has already paid the amount which was due by him along with security bond, his right has to be protected under Section 114 of TP Act and he shall be continued as a lessee in the suit schedule property and accordingly allowed the application. Aggrieved thereby, the Mutt is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Mutt submits that he has sought for ejectment and also other reliefs against the defendant. Just because the manner in which the order is passed, it appears that the entire suit proceedings are terminated. He submits that unless and until the Court decides all the issues and the relief that is sought and the detailed finding is given by the Court it cannot be held that the suit proceedings are terminated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on para No.15, 16, 17 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Suresh Shah Vs. Hipad Technology India Private Limited , [(2021) 1 SCC 529] which reads thus:
"15. A perusal of the provisions indicate the manner in which the determination of lease would occur, which also includes determination by forfeiture due to the acts of the lessee/tenant in breaking the express condition agreed between the parties or provided in law. The breach and the consequent forfeiture could also be with respect to non-payment of rent. In such circumstance where the lease is determined by forfeiture and the lessor sues to eject the lessee and, if, at the hearing of the suit, the lessee pays
