INDER JEET Vs. JAI MANMOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the appellant under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act praying that the respondent be ordered to accept full payment of the entire rent due to him upto date together with interest and entire costs of the litigation and the appellant relieved against the forefeiture of his tenancy. The application has been resisted by the respondent inter alia on the grounds that the provisions of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, having been abrogated by the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, the same are not available to the appellant, that the application ought to have been made in the Court of the first instance, that the application is mis-conceived and cannot be entertained at this belated stage, that the application is not bonafide and in any event it is liable to be rejected in view of the highly unreasonable attitude of the appellant.

(2.) For a proper appreciation of the points involved in this application, it is necessary to refer to a few material facts :

(3.) Without going into the vexed questions whether or not the wider provisions of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act stand abrogated by the provisions of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act and whether or not Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act can be invoked in case of default under the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act as the said questions are the subject matter of a reference to a division bench of this Court, but assuming for the sake of argument that the provisions of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act can be invoked, I think that the present application must fail.