Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8 Mr. Sanjanwala, the learned senior counsel submitted as under:

"That both the Courts have erred in giving relief against forfeiture and no conditional decree could have been passed by the learned Trial Court. In view of clear wordings of Section 114 which provides that tenant to deposit (not the sub­lessee) pays or tenders to the lessor the rent in arrear, together with interest thereon and his full costs of the suit, or gives such security as the Court thinks sufficient for making such payment within fifteen days, the Court may, in lieu of making & decree for ejectment, pass an order relieving the lessee against the forfeiture; and thereupon the lessee shall hold the property leased as if the forfeiture had not occurred. In the said Section, it is clearly provided that only the lessee can be relieved against forfeiture if he fulfills the conditions of Section 114. It is pertinent to point out that without prejudice to the contentions of the appellant, that no conditional decree could have been passed, even assuming that such decree has been passed, it is an admitted position that the lessee has failed to deposit the full amount and cost as envisaged under Section 114 and, therefore, the relief against forfeiture was bound to be revoked. In any view of the matter, in view of the fact that for last 30 to 40 years, no rent has been paid by anybody or deposited in the Court, and that the lease has come to an end by afflux of time under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, the appellant is entitled to the decree for possession within a stipulated time directing the respondents to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession forthwith and the dishonest plea of the said defendants may not be accepted.