SUNIL KUMAR MODI Vs. MUNNA LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DILIP Gupta, J. This Civil Revision which has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 has been filed by the defendant for setting aside the judgment and order dated 15th November, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Court No. 1 Jhansi by which the Suit has been decreed for rent and ejectment.

(2.) THE contention advanced by Sri Pramod Kumar Jain learned Senior counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist was entitled to the benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the ''act') as there was no default in the payment of rent on the part of the defendant since the security amount of Rs. 60,000/- deposited by the tenant was lying with the plaintiff.

(3.) SECTION 106 of the Act as amended in U. P. by U. P. Act No. 24 of 1954 is as follows:- "in the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six month's notice; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee, by thirty days' notice. Every notice under this section must be in writing signed by or on behalf of the person giving it and either be sent by post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party, or to one of his family or servants, at his residence, or (if such tender or delivery is not practicable) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property. " SECTION 111 of the Act is quoted below:- "a lease of immovable property, determines: (a) by efflux of the time limited thereby; (b) where such time is limited conditionally on the happening of some event by the happening of such event; (c) where the interest of the lessor in the property terminates on, or his power to dispose of the same extends only to, the happening of any event by the happening of such event; (d) in case the interests of the lessee and the lessor in the whole of the property become vested at the same time in one person in the same right; (e) by express surrender; that is to say, in case the lessee yields up his interest under the lease to the lessor, by mutual agreement between them; (f) by implied surrender; (g) by forfeiture, that is to say, (1) in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that on breach thereof the lessor may re-enter; or (2) in case the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself; or (3) the lessee is adjudicated an insolvent and the lease provides that the lessor may re-enter on the happening of such event; and in any of these cases the lessor or his transferee gives notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease; (h) on the expiration of a notice to determine the lease, or to quit, or of intention to quit, the property lease, duly given by one party to the other. " SECTION 114 of the Act is as under:- "where a lease of immovable property has been determined by forfeiture for non-payment of rent and the lessor sues to eject the lessee, 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 lease against the forfeiture; and thereupon the lessee shall hold the property leased as if the forfeiture had not occurred. " 5. The word "forfeiture" has not been defined under the Act but it means the loss of a legal right by means of some breach of an obligation.