PRADESH KUMAR BAJPAI versus BINOD BEHARI SARKAR

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 93 · Decided: 21-03-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
·.""-
PRADESH KUMAR BAJPAI 
v. 
BINOD BEHARI SARKAR 
March 21, 1980 
93 
rs. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P. s. KAILASAM AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] 
Double Protection-Once the requirements of Rent Act are satisfied, the 
tenant cannot claim the double protection of invoking the 
provisions of the 
Transfer of Property Act or the terms of the contract-Section 114 of the Trans-
fer of Property Act, (Act 4 of 1882) and section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) 
Control of Rent and Eviction Act. 
The appellant plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the respondent tenant and 
for arrears of rent and mesne profits. Though 
no 
specific plea of re1 ief 
against forfeiture for non-payment of rent under section 114 of the Transfer 
<>f Property Act was taken in the pleadings, during the. course of the arguments, 
the tenant claimed the benefit under section 114 of the Transfer of Property 
Act. The Trial Judge found that the respondent \\'as a defaulter and held tha~ 
the notice to quit was a valid one but found that as section 114 of the Trans 
fer of Property Act was applicable to the facts of the case and the balance of 
convenience being with the respondent tenant, dismissed the suit for possessipn, 
but gave a decree for arrears of rent. In appeal the first appellate court held 
that the trial Court was in error in granting relief against forfeiture under Sec-
tion 114 of the Tansfer of Property Act and decreed the suit as prayed for. 
On serond appeal, the High Court after making a fresh appraisal of the 
evidence came to the conculsion that as per the terms of the lease deed of 1955 
six months' notice was necessary even if the premises were not taken for manu· 
facturing purposes and as required notice of six months was not given the suit 
was not maintainable and as such liable to be dismissed. 
Allowing the plaintiff's appeal by special leave, the Court, 
HELD : 1. Once the requirements 
of Rent Act 
are satisfied, the tenant 
cannot claim the doubfe protection of invoking the provisions of the Transfer 
of Property Act or the terms of the contract. The provision of section 114 of 
the Transfer of Property Act cannot therefore be read into the U.P. (Tempo-
rary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. 
[99 B & D, 100 DJ 
In the instant case : 
(a) The question of termination of the lease by forfeiture does not aris~ 
on the facts of the case; [100 BJ 
(b) after the Rent Act cante into force, the landlord cannot avail himself 
of clause 12 which provides fdr forfeiture, even if the tenant neglected to pay the 
rent for over two months; [100 BJ 
A 
H 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
(c) the landlord cannot enter into possession forthwith without notice. The 
H 
only remedy for him is to seek eviction under the provisions of the Rent Act; 
and [100 B C:1 
94 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
( d) in such circumstances, the tenant cannot rely on S. 114 of Transfer cf 
B 
c 
D 
l'roperty Act and claim that he should be given an opportunity to pay the 
~ 
arrears of rent, even though the requirements of section 3(1) bad been fulti.lled, 
[100 CJ 
V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yasadai Amma/, [1980] I S.C.R. 334 at 350-51; 
followed. 
2. Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act Ill 
-restricts the rights of the landlord to have 
the tenant evicted. 
But for the 
statutory provisions, the landlord would be entitled to evict the tenant accord: 
ing to the terms of the contract or the provisions of the Transfer of Property 
Act. As the Rent Act has restricted the power of the landlord to evict the 
tenant except in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the terms of the 
contract and the provisions of the Transfer of 'Property Act to that extent are no 
longer applicable. [97 C-EJ 
3. -Jn the instant case : 
(a) the condition required under section 3(1) of the U.P. Act had been 
satisfied and permission by the District Magistrate was rightly granted and suit 
ftled as contemplated by section 3 (I); and [98 A] 
(b) the notice is based on default of payment of rent for more than three 
months and called upon the tenant to vacate the premises a =nth after the 
rec.eipt of the notice if he failed to pay the rent as required under section 3 of 
the U.P. Act. [98 B-CJ 
CrVJL APPELLATE JURTSDICTION : Civil Appeal No .. 1235/70. 
E 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
F 
H 
25-9-1969 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Second Appeal 
No. 1520 of 1966. 
P. Govinda Nair, S. Ba'akrishnan and S. Q; Sambandan for the 
Appellant.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.