http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: PRADUMAN KUMAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VIRENDRA GOYAL (DEAD) BY L. RS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/03/1969

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1969 AIR 1349            1969 SCR  (3) 950  1969 SCC  (1) 714

ACT: Transfer  of Property Act (4 of 1882) s. 114-Relief  against forfeiture-Opportunity  given-Trial Court-Failure to  avail- Appellate Court’s jurisdiction.

HEADNOTE: In  a lease of land, it was covenanted that in the event  of default  of payment of rent for two consecutive  years,  the tenancy rights will stand forfeited.  As the rent remain due and in arrears for two years, the landlord filed a suit  for the  eviction of the tenants and for payment of the  arrears of  rent  and  compensation.   The  tenants  claimed  relief against  forfeiture of their tenancy rights under s. 114  of the  Transfer  of  Property Act and deposited  in  Court  an amount  less than the amount due.  The Trial  Court  decreed the suit holding that the conditions relating to deposit  in Court of rent in arrear, interest thereon, and costs of  the suit  were  not  complied with.  The  tenants  appealed  and offered  to pay balance of rent due together with  costs  of the  suit  and  the appeal and interest,  and  deposited  an amount  much larger than due.  The appellate  court  allowed the  appeal  holding that the tenants were entitled  to  the benefit  of s. 114 when they were willing and ready  to  pay more   than   what  was  due,  and   there   were   valuable constructions   on   the   plots   and   the    respondent’s dispossession  would  put them to a great  loss.   The  High Court dismissed the appeal against this decision.  In appeal before   this  Court,  the  landlord  contended   that   the jurisdiction  under  s. ’114 to relieve  against  forfeiture could only be exercised by the Court of First Instance; that the tenants having failed to avail of the opportunity  given by the Trial Court to pay the amount due with interests  and costs,  the  appellate court had no  jurisdiction  to  grant another  opportunity;  and  that  the  discretion  was   not properly exercised in this case.  Repelling the contentions, this Court :- HELD  :  The  covenant of ’forfeiture of  tenancy  for  non- payment of rent is regarded by the Courts as merely a clause for  securing payment of rent, and unless the tenant has  by his  conduct  disentitled himself to  equitable  relief  the Courts  grant relief against forefeiture of tenancy  on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

tenant  paying the rent due, interest thereon and  costs  of the  suit.  Jurisdiction to relieve against forefeiture  for non-payment  of  rent may be exercised by the Court  if  the tenant  in  a suit in ejectment at the hearing of  the  suit pays the arrears of rent together with interest thereon  and full  costs of the suit.  In terms s. 114 makes  payment  of rent at the hearing of the suit in ejectment a condition  of the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction but an appeal being a rehearing of the suit, in appropriate cases, it is open to the Appellate Court at the hearing of the appeal to  relieve the  tenant  in default against forfeiture.   Passing  of  a decree in ejectment against the tenant by the Court of First Instance  does  not  take  away  the  jurisdiction  of   the Appellate Court to grant equitable relief. [953 C] Failure  to  avail themselves of the  opportunity  does  not operate as a bar to the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court may, having regard to the conduct of the tenant,  decline  to exercise its discretion  to  grant  him relief against forfeiture. [954 A] 951 Chilukuri  Tripura  Sundaramma v.  Chitukuri  Venkates-Warlu alias  Ramchandram and Others, A.I.R. 1949 Mad.  841;  Janab Vellhi  and others v. Smt.  K. Kadervet-- Thayammal,  A.I.R. 1958   Mad.  232;  Shrikishanlal  and  Others   v.   Ramnath Jankiprasad  Ahir  and others, I.L.R. 1944 Nag.  877;  Budhi Ballabh  and others v. Jai Kishen Kandpal, 1963 A.L.J.  132, Bhagwant  Rambhau Khese v. Ramchandra Kesho  Pathak,  A.I.R. 1953 Bom. 129; Namdeo Lokman Lodhi v. Narmadabai and others, [1953] S.C.R. 1009. 1025, referred to. Having   regard   to   the   circumstances   that   valuable constructions  were put up on the land and that the  tenants had  deposited much larger amount than due,  the  discretion was  rightly exercised in favour of the tenant In an  appeal with special leave, this Court will not ordinarily interfere with  an  order made in exercise of the  discretion  of  the Courts  below,  specially when there was evidence  that  the tenants  were guilty of conduct disentitling them to  relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent. [954 E]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 648 of 1966. Appeal  by  special leave from the order dated  December  4, 1964  of the the Allahabad High Court in Second  Appeal  No. 3310 of 1964. Sarjoo Prasad and J. P. Goyal for the appellant. R.   K. Garg and A. N. Goyal, for respondent No. 1. R.   K.  Garg, D. P. Singh, S. C. Agarwala, Uma Dutt and  S. Chakravarti, for respondent No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah,  J.  Under  a deed dated October  28,  1949,  Virendra Goyal,  the  first  respondent  herein,  obtained  permanent tenancy rights in 28 plots of land of the ownership of  Lala Praduman  Kumar.   The tenant agreed to pay Rs.  250/-  per annum  as advance rent on the first day of January  of  each year, and in default of payment of rent for two  consicutive years  the  tenancy rights were to stand  forfeited.   Goyal transferred   his  tenancy  rights  to  Lala  Hukam   Chand. Pursuant  to the lease several tenements were raised on  the land demised. The tenant failed to pay the rent accrued due for two years. The  appellant  then  served a notice on  January  4,  1960, terminating  the  tenancy and instituted an  action  in  the Court  of  the City Munsiff,  Saharanpur,  against  Virendra

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Goyal and Lala Hukam Chand for a decree in ejectment and for an  order  for  payment  of’ Rs. 545/1 1  /-  as  rent  and compensation. Several  contentions were raised in their written  statement by  the  defendants  one of which alone  is  material.   The tenants  prayed  that they should be  given  relief  against forfeiture  of  their  tenancy rights under s.  114  of  the Transfer of Property Act.  ’In the Trial 952 Court the tenants deposited an amount of Rs. 1,099-34.   The Trial Judge held that the conditions relating to deposit  in Court  of rent in arrear interest thereon, and costs of  the suit  were  not ’Compiled with and decreed  the  plaintiff’s claim.   In appeal to the District Court the tenant  offered to  pay the balance of the amount of the rent  due  together with  costs of the suit and appeal and interest at the  rate of  6% per annum or such other rate as the Court may  direct and  deposit  in Court Rs. 2,082.50 in the  aggregate.   The learned District Judge was of the view that the amount  paid by  the tenants was in excess of the amount due by them  and observed :               ". . . the appellants have deposited much more               amount  than  is  due  to  the  respondent  as               arrears  of rent the costs of the suit and  of               the  appeal  and the interest.   There  is  no               reason  why  benefit of section 1 1 4  of  the               Transfer  of Property Act be not given to  the               appellants when they are ready and willing  to               pay  much more amount than is actually due  to               the  respondent.  The fact is that  there  are               valuable  constructions  over  the  plot   and               defendants  dispossession would put them to  a               great  loss.  It is for this reason that  they               are  prepared  to pay the amount that  may  be               demanded  from them. 1, therefore,  find  that               the appellants are entitled to the benefit  of               section  114 of the Transfer of  Property  Act               and are relieved against the forfeiture". The  second  appeal  against  this  decision  was  summarily dismissed by the High Court of Allahabad. In appeal to this Court counsel for the appellant contends               (1)   that  jurisdiction under s. 114  of  the               Transfer  of Property Act to  relieve  against               forfeiture for non-payment of rent may only be               exercised  by the Court of First Instance  and               not by the Court of Appeal;               (2)   that the Trial Court gave an opportunity               to  the tenants to pay the amount of rent  due               together  with  interest and  costs,  but  the               tenants  failed  to avail  themselves  of  the               opportunity.    In   the   circumstances   the               appellate  Court had no jurisdiction to  grant               another opportunity to the tenants to make the               requisite  payment  and grant  relief  against               forfeiture of the tenancy;               (3)   that  in any event, discretion  was,  in               the  circumstances, not properly exercised  by               the District Court.               953               In  our view, there is no substance in any  of               the  contentions. Section 114 of the  Transfer               of Property Act provides               "Where  a  lease  of  immovable  property  has               determined  by forfeiture for  non-payment  of               rent, and the lessor sues to eject the lessee,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

             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". The  covenant  of forfeiture of tenancy for  non-payment  of rent  is  regarded  by the Courts as  merely  a  clause  for securing  payment of rent, and unless the tenant has by  his conduct  disentitled himself to equitable relief the  Courts grant  relief  against forfeiture of tenancy on  the  tenant paying the rent due, interest thereon and costs of the suit. Jurisdiction  to relieve against forfeiture for  non-payment of  rent  may be exercised by the Court if the tenant  in  a suit  in  ejectment  at the hearing of  the  suit  pays  the arrears  of  rent together with interest  thereon  and  full costs of the suit.  In terms s. 114 makes payment of rent at the  hearing  of the suit in ejectment a  condition  of  the exercise  of the Courts’ jurisdiction but an appeal being  a rehearing  of the suit, in appropriate cases it is  open  to the appellate Court at the hearing of the appeal to  relieve the tenant  in default against forfeiture.  Passing  of  a decree in ejectment against the tenant by the Court of First Instance  does not take away the jurisdiction of the  appel- late  Court  to grant equitable relief.  This  is  the  view taken  by  the High Courts in India: see  Chilukuri  Tripura Sundaramma v. Chilkuri Venketes-Warlu alias Ramchandram  and others(1)  Janab  Vellathi and others v. Smt.   K.  Kadervel Thayammal   (2)  ;  Shrikishanlal  and  others  v.   Ramnath Jankiprasad Ahir and others(3); Budhi Ballabh and others  v. Jai  Kishen Kandpal(4).  The High Court of Bombay  in  cases arising  under  the Bombay Rents, Hotel  and  Lodging  House Rates Control Act, 1947, has also expressed the same opinion in Bhagwant Rambhau Khese v. Ramchandra Kesho Pathak(5).  We  do not think that there is any bar to the  exercise  of jurisdiction  by the appellate court merely because  in  the Court  of  First  Instance  relief  against  forfeiture  was claimed  by the tenants and they failed to avail  themselves of  the  opportunity of paying the amount of  rent  together with interest thereon and costs of the suit. (1) A.I.R. 1949 Mad. 841.       (2) A.I.R. 1958 Mad. 232. (3) I.L.R. 1944 Nag. 877.       (4) 1963 A.L.J. 132. (5)  A.I.R. 1953 Bom. 129. 954 Failure  to  avail themselves of the  opportunity  does  not operate as a bar to the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court may, having regard to the conduct of the tenant,  decline  to exercise its. discretion to  grant  him relief   against  forfeiture.   The  question  is  not   one of..jurisdiction  but of discretion.  This Court  in  Namdeo Lokman Lodhi v. Narmadabai and others(1) has observed at  p. 1025 :               ".......  in exercising the discretion  (under               s. 114 of the Transfer of Property Act),  each               case must be judged by itself, the delay,  the               conduct of the parties and the difficulties to               which  the  landlord has been put’  should  be               weighed  against  the tenant.......  It  is  a               maxim  of  equity that a person who  comes  in               equity must do equity and must come with clean

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

             hands and if the conduct of the tenant is such               that  it disentitles him to relief in  equity,               then  the  court’s  hands  are  not  tied   to               exercise it in his favour". The District Court has observed that valuable  constructions had  been  put  upon the land leased  and  the  tenants  had deposited an amount very much larger than the amount due  to the  landlord.   Having  regard  to  the  circumstances  the District  Court  was of the view that discretion  should  be exercised  in  favour  of  the  tenants.   The  High   Court summarily  dismissed  the appeal.  The High  Court  must  be taken to have confirmed the view of the District Court.   In an appeal with special leave, this Court will not ordinarily interfere  with an order made in exercise of the  discretion of  the  Courts below, specially when there is  no  evidence that the tenants were guilty of conduct disentitling them to relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent. The appeal      therefore fails and is dismissed with costs. Y.P.                                       Appeal dismissed. (1) [1953] S.C.R.1009,1025. 955