Relief against forfeiture requires timely payment of arrears; unpaid rent and admitted defaults justify possession on admission.

Relief against forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act is available only if the tenant pays or tenders the arrears, interest and costs at the first hearing. Where arrears of rent and the tenancy terms are admitted, and the tenant fails to make the required payment even after earlier , the protection is unavailable. A lease clause providing forfeiture for two consecutive defaults and notice by registered post supports enforcement of the landlord's right; service of summons may also constitute a sufficient demand. In this setting, the tenant's defence to possession does not survive and a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the tenant was entitled to relief against forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 despite admitted arrears of rent and whether a decree for possession on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was justified.

Analysis: The tenancy, the lease deed, the contractual obligation to pay rent, and the existence of arrears were not in dispute. Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 permits relief against forfeiture only when the tenant pays or tenders the arrears, interest, and costs at the first hearing. The tenant did not do so even after opportunity had been granted earlier. The lease deed also provided for forfeiture upon two consecutive defaults and contemplated notice by registered post. The Court found that notices had been sent and, in any event, service of summons in the suit constituted a sufficient demand. Section 108(l) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 independently casts a duty on the lessee to pay rent when due. In these circumstances, the defence to possession did not survive and the case was fit for a decree on admission.

Conclusion: The tenant was not entitled to relief against forfeiture, and the decree for possession on admission was justified.

---