Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

An action commenced by the appellant against the Court of Wards in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala for a decree for refund of the rent paid by him was decreed. But the High Court of Punjab reversed the decree holding that the doctrine of frustration of contract did not apply to leases of immovable property and that in any event on the facts proved there was no case of frustration established by the appellant. With certificate granted by the High Court, this appeal is preferred by the appellant. Raja Harmohinder Singh and Kanwar Rajinder Singh have now been substituted in place of the Court of Wards as the respondents.

(1) (1647) Aleyn, 26.

(2) [1944] A.C. 265.

It has 'been held by this Court that the rule in s. 56 exhaustively deals with the doctrine of frustration of contracts, and it, cannot be extended by analogies borrowed from the English common law. In Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. and A nr. (1), Mukherjea, J., observed at p. 3 19 :

"........ the doctrine of frustration is really an aspect or part of the law of discharge of contract by reason of supervening impossibility or illegality of the act agreed to be done and hence comes within the purview of section 56 of the Indian Contract Act. It would be incorrect to say that section 56 of the Contract Act applies only to cases of physical impossibility and that where this section is not applicable, recourse can be had to the principles of English law on the subject of frustration. It must be held also that to the extent that the Indian Contract Act deals with a particular subject, it is exhaustive upon the same and it is not permissible to import the principles of English law dehors these statutory provisions."

In Tarabai Jivanlal Parekh v. Lala Padamehand(2) it was held that monthly tenants of residential premises from whose occupation the premises were requisitioned continued to remain the monthly tenants of the landlord as before and that by reason of the requisition there was no eviction by title paramount or a (1) A.I.R. 1952 Cal. 380.

(2) A.I.R. 1950 Bom. 89.

sup. Cl/68-9 frustration of adventure. The Court in that case observed that the doctrine of frustration did not apply where there is a lease whether the term is one for a fixed period or one which can be terminated by notice to quit, as the estate vested in the lessee by a lease is not extinguished by the order of requisition which is of a temporary nature. In Alanduraiappar Koil Chithakkadu by its Trustee M. Rama- nanda Nainar and Ors. v. T. S. A. Hamid and Another(1), a lessee of a shandy tope agreeing to pay an annual rent for a period of five years was held not to be entitled to remission merely for the reason that the shandy was hit by two cyclones during the period of lease and that for some period on account of the cyclone, "the shandy did not form properly or regularly and the lessee did not get any income". The Court held in that case that in the absence of any provision for remission on account of losses, no such remission can be granted by the Courts.

(2) A.T.R. 1962 Mad. 132.

(3) I.L.R. 7 Cal. 474.

does not, in our view, support the contention that the doctrine of frustration applies to the case of a lease. The case strongly relied upon by counsel for the appellant was Gurdarshan Singh and Anr. v. Bishen Singh(1). In that case a lease was executed on January 8, 1947 in respect of agricultural land situated in an area which on partition of India fell within West Pakistan. The Court found that possession of the demised land was not given to the lessee, and the landlord was on account of riots unable to deliver possession. Obviously on that finding the tenant was entitled to claim refund of the rent paid. But the Court proceeded to consider the question "whether the doctrine of frustration applies to a contract of lease of agricultural lands" and recorded an answer that the doctrine of frustration applies to leases. The Court observed at P. 13-