LexNAMDEO LOKMAN LODHI versus NARMADABAI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1009 The result, therefore, is that this appeal must fail and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. Agent for appellant: S. Subramaniam. Agent for respondent : M.S.K. Aiyangar. NAMDEO LOKMAN LODHI v. NARMADABAI AND OTHERS [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN and S. R. DAS JJ.] Lease-Condit.ion that the lessee's rights shall terminate if rent is not paid--Notice in writing by lessor to terrninate lease-Whether necessary-S!!it for ejectment withotlt notice-Maintainability- Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882 as amended in 1929), s. 111( g)-Whether based on justice, equity and good conscience-Appli. cability to lease deeds executed before 1st April, 1930. The provision as to notice in writing of the lessor's intention to determine the lease, containei1 in section l ll(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as amended in 1929, is not based on any princjple of justice, equity or good con;cience and is not applicable to leases executed prior to 1st April, 1930. Where a lease deed executed before the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, came into force, provided that the lessee's rights should come to an end on default of payment of rent, and, as rent was not duly paid, the lessor instituted a suit for ejectment of the lessee without giving him a notice in writing of his (the lessor's) intention to determine the lease: Held, that the suit was maintainable, Umar Pulavar v. Dawood Rowther (A.LR. 194 7 :VIa<l. 68), Bralvmayya v. Sundaramma (A.LR. 48 }fad. 275), Tatya Savla S11drik v. Yeshwanta Kondiba Mulay (52 Born. hR. 909) disappro- ved. Toleman v. Portbury (L.R. 6 Q.13. 245), Prakash Chandra Das v. Rajendra Nath Basu (I.L.R. 58 Cal. 1359), Rama Ai11angar v. Gumswami Chetty (35 l'vl.L.J. 129), Venkatachari v. Ranga· swami Aiyar(36 llf.L.J. 532) and Krishna Shetti v. Gilbert Pinto (I.L.R. 42 !Yfad. 654) relied on. Venkatarama Aiyar v. Ponnu- swamy Padayachi IA.LR. 1935 Mad; 918), Aditya Prasad v. Ram Ratanlal (57L-A. 173), Muhammad Raza v. Abbas Bandi Bi/Ji. (59 I.A. 236), Roberts v. Davey (110 E.R. 606) distinguished. Crvn. A1'PELLA'l'E JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 154 of 1952. Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 23rd June, 1949, of the High 13! I 1953 Bud Wit Satyanarayana and Others v. Konduru Venkatapayya and Other«~. 1953 Feb. 27. I 1010 SUPREME COUR,T REPORTS [l!l53] J%3 Court of Judicature at Bombay ,(Chagla C. J. Namd;a- Lokmanand Gajendragadkar J.) in Second Appeal No. 557 of Lodhi 1945 against the Judgment and Decree dated the v. 19th March, 1945, of the Court of Small Causes, Nmmadabai Poona, in Civil Appen,l No. 175 of 1943, arising @d Otltera. from the Decree dated the 31st March, 1943, of the Mahajan J. Court of the Extra ,Joint Sub-Judge of Poona in Suit No. 858 of 1941. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (.!. B. Dadachanji, with him) for the appellant. V. M. Tarkunde for the respondents. 1953. February 27. The judgment of the Court was delivered by MAHAJAN J.-This is an appeal by defendant No. I from the decree of the High Court. of Judicature at Bombay in Second Appeal No. 557 of 1945, whereby the High Court confirmed the decree of the lower courts granting possession of land to the respondents on the forfeiture of a lease. The appeal is confined to survey No. 86 /2 at Mundhava in Poona district. The principai question arising for decision in the a p- peal is whether notice as contemplated by sectionlll(g) of the Transfer of Property Act is necessary for the determination of a, lease for non-payment of rent even where such lease was executed before the coming into force of the Transfer of Property Act. The only other question that falls for determination is whether the High Court should have interfered with the discretion of the lower courts in refusing relief against forfeiture in the circumstances of this case. The present respondents arethe daughter and grand- sons of the original plaintiff Vinayakbhat. His adoptive mother was Ramabai. She owned two inam lands at Mundhava which -were then numbered Pratibhandi Nos. 71 and 72. Present survey Nos. 86/1 and 86/2 together correspond to old Pratibhandi No. 71. On 1st July, 1863, Ramabai, while she was in financial difficul- ties, passed a permanent lease of both these numbers to one Ladha Ibrahim Sheth. The lessee paid a pre- mium of Rs. 999 for the lease, and also agreed to pay I s.c.it. SUPREME COURT i:tEPO
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.