Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This section is retrospective in its operation & affects all pending suits & proceedings in execution. The suit, in the present case, was laid for the ejectment of deft 2 on the ground that he had transferred the holding without the consent of the landlord. Although he had transferred the holding, it cannot be said that he ceased to be a tenant from that very moment, until he was actually evicted in execution of a decree in ejectment his tenancy continues. As a result of the transfer, the privity of estate between him & the landlord is assigned. The transferee becomes liable for the rent by reason of his getting possession of the estate. Section 100, Tenancy Act says that "no tenant shall be ejected from his tenure or holding except in execution of a decree". To regard a tenant who has transferred his holding - assuming it to be non-transferable - as a trespasser from the date of his transfer would be to put restrained construction & the reverse of a liebral one. All that can be said in such a case is that he incurs forfeiture for breach of a condition of the tenancy but if the breach is capable of being remedied the forfeiture can foe relieved against. I can find no support either in the T. P. Act or in the Tenancy Act itself for the proposition that the moment the lessee violates a provision of the lease he becomes a trespasser & ceases to be a tenant. I cannot conceive of any suit for ejectment of a tenant unless he has violated some condition of the tenancy. To read the clause "any suit for the ejectment of a tenant" occurring in Schedule as being applicable only to a person who was a tenant complying with all the conditions of the tenancy would be to confine to the letter of the enactment and not to the spirit, & would be sacrificing good sense to technicality.