Forfeiture-based ejectment requires specific pleading of absence of notice; a new appellate objection cannot defeat maintainability.
In an ejectment action founded on forfeiture of a lease, the absence of a notice in writing under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be raised for the first time in second appeal where it was not specifically pleaded in the written statement or at trial. The text explains that matters showing non-maintainability must be distinctly pleaded, and conditions precedent are treated as implied unless specifically denied. It also notes that a defendant who has asserted a hostile title cannot consistently rely on lack of notice as a defence to cause of action or maintainability. On that footing, the suit is treated as maintainable on forfeiture.
Issues: Whether the defendant could, for the first time in second appeal, rely on absence of notice in writing under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act to contend that the suit for ejectment was not maintainable or that no cause of action arose.
Analysis: The suit was founded on forfeiture of the lease by breach of conditions entitling the lessor to re-entry, not merely on a monthly tenancy requiring a notice to quit. On the pleadings and the findings below, the lease stood forfeited and the plaintiff's right to possession had accrued. A plea that no notice under Section 111(g) had been given was not taken in the written statement or at trial, and the defendant had in any event set up a hostile title of his own, making the suggested plea inconsistent with his main defence. The provisions of the Code relating to pleadings required matters showing non-maintainability to be raised distinctly, and conditions precedent to the plaintiff's case were deemed implied unless specifically controverted.
Conclusion: The plea of absence of notice could not be entertained, and the suit was maintainable on the basis of forfeiture.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the decree for ejectment and arrears of rent was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi: In an ejectment suit based on forfeiture of a lease, a defendant who has not specifically pleaded absence of the requisite notice and who simultaneously disputes the landlord's title cannot, at the appellate stage, raise want of notice under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act as a defence to maintainability or cause of action.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
