1969 (3) TMI 106 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Confirms Equitable Relief for Tenants, Upholds District Court's Decision Against Forfeiture.

Praduman Kumar Versus Virendra Goyal (Dead) by Lrs.

The SC upheld the decisions of the lower courts, affirming the District Court's grant of relief against forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of ... - Issues:1. Relief against forfeiture of tenancy rights under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. Jurisdiction of the appellate court to grant relief against forfeiture.3. Exercise of discretion by the District Court in granting relief against forfeiture.4. Confirmation of the District Court's decision by the High Court.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: The case involved the issue of relief against forfeiture of tenancy rights under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. The tenants sought relief against forfeiture after failing to pay rent for two years, as per the terms of the lease agreement. The Trial Court initially decreed in favor of the landlord, but the District Court later granted relief to the tenants, considering their willingness to pay the outstanding amount along with interest and costs. The District Court invoked Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act to relieve the tenants against forfeiture due to their readiness to fulfill the payment obligations.Issue 2: The appellant contended that the jurisdiction to grant relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent lies only with the Court of First Instance and not with the appellate court. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the appellate court also has the authority to provide equitable relief in appropriate cases. The Court highlighted that an appeal constitutes a rehearing of the suit, allowing the appellate court to exercise jurisdiction to grant relief against forfeiture, even if the Court of First Instance had already passed a decree for ejectment.Issue 3: The appellant further argued that the District Court did not properly exercise its discretion in granting relief against forfeiture. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and upheld the District Court's decision. The District Court considered factors such as valuable constructions on the leased land and the tenants' deposit exceeding the amount due to the landlord. The Court emphasized that the exercise of discretion by the District Court was justified given the circumstances of the case.Issue 4: The High Court summarily dismissed the second appeal against the District Court's decision, effectively confirming the view of the District Court. The Supreme Court noted that in cases where the lower courts have exercised their discretion appropriately, interference by the higher court is not warranted unless there is evidence of misconduct by the tenants disentitling them to relief against forfeiture. As no such evidence was presented, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal with costs.