PRADUMAN KUMAR versus VIRENDRA GOYAL (DEAD) BY L. RS.

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 950 · Decided: 11-03-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

PRADUMAN KUMAR 
v. 
VIRENDRA GOYAL (DEAD) BY L. RS. 
March ll, 1969 
[J. c. SHAH AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Transfer of Property A.ct (4 of. 1882) s. 114-Relief against forfei-
ture-Opportunity given-Trial Court-Failure to avaU-Appellate Courfs 
Jurisdiction. 
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 
fol'feited. 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 Jess 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 to-
gether 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 
we're 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 Joss. 
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 e>:ercised 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 cbsts, the appellate court had no jurisdiction to 
grant another opportunity; and that the discretion was not properly exer-
cised 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 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 th~ hearing 
of the suit pays the arrears of rent tOllOther 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 exerdjse of the Court's jurisdicw 
tion but an appeal being a rehearing of the suit, in appropriate cases, it 
is open to the Appellate Court at the hearing of tho appeal to relieve the 
tenant in default aaainst forfeiture. 
Passin2 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 CJ 
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 discre-
tion to grant him relief against forfeiture. (954 Al 
· 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
II 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
PRADUMAN KUMAR v. VIRENDRA GOYAL (Shah,/,) 
951 
Chilukuri Tripura Sundaramma v. Chilukuri Venkates-Warlu 
alias 
Ramchandram and Others, 
A.I.R. 1949 Mad. 841; Jenab Ve/lathi and 
othm v. Smt. K. Kadervel Thayammal, A.I.R. 1958 Mad. 23l; Shrikishan· 
la/ and Others v. Ramnath Jankiprasad Ahir and others, I.L.R. 1944 Nag. 
877; Budhi Ballabh and other> v. Jai Klshen Kandpal, 1963 A.LJ. 132, 
Bhagwant Rambhau Khese v. Ramchandra Kesho Pathak, 
A.I.R. 1953 
Born. 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 
inte'rfere 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 El 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appea

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