RAMNIRANJAN PRASAD TULSHYAN Vs. GAJADHAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suits out of which these appeals arise the plaintiff alleged that he obtained a registered lease of the land in dispute from the Sasaram Municipality who is defendant No, 2 by a registered document dated the 20th October, 1944. The plaintiff thereafter inducted the principal defendant of each suit in the suit land and the houses which the plaintiff had constructed after taking settlement from the Sasaram Municipality. The plaintiff brought the suits against the principal defendants for a declaration that his lease with the Sasaram Municipality is still subsisting find the plaintiff is entitled to realise rent from the respective principal defendants. Both the lower courts dismissed the suits brought by the plaintiff, principally on the ground that the title of the plaintiff has been existinguished by forfeiture of the lease and the plaintiff had, therefore, no right to realise rent from the principal defendant of each suit.

(2.) In support of all these appeals the main contention put forward by the learned Government Advocate is that in view of the provisions of Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act there should be a notice in writing given by the Sasaram Municipality to the plaintiff for the forfeiture of the lease, and since the lower appellate court has come to a finding of fact that no such notice has been given by the Sasaram Municipality in terms of Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, the title of the plaintiff as lessee still subsisted and the plaintiff was entitled to get a decree for rent from the respective defendants. The opposite view point is Put forward by learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents. It was submitted that in view of the express terms of the registered lease, dated the 20th October, 1944, there was an automatic forfeiture of the lease as soon as there was non-payment of rent", and the title of the plaintiff as lessee had terminated with effect from July, 1953, when the plaintiff discontinued' payment of rent to the Sasaram Municipality. Reference was made in this connection to the following portion of the lease, exhibit 3:--

(3.) It was, however, contended by the learned Government Advocate that even though there was an express provision in the registered lease that there would be forfeiture for non-payment of rent even without notice on the part of the lessor, the ' requirement of Section 111(g-) of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be waived, and in the absence of notice in writing given by the Sasaram Municipality the title of the plaintiff as a lessee continued. In our opinion the argument put forward by the learned Government Advocate is well founded and must be accepted as correct. Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act is in the following terms:--