National Textile Coporation Ltd. vs Ahmedabadni Samasta Modh Champaneri ... on 6 December, 2007
The covenant of forfeiture of tenancy for non-payment of rent is regarded by the courts as merely a clause for securing payment of rent, and unless the tenant has by his conduct disentitled himself to equitable relief the courts grant relief against forfeiture of tenancy on the tenant paying the rent due, interest thereon and costs of the suit. Jurisdiction to relieve against forfeiture for non-payment of rent may be exercised by the Court if the tenant in a suit in ejectment at the hearing of the suit pays the arrears of rent together with interest thereon and full costs of the suit. In terms Section 114 makes payment of rent at the hearing of the suit in ejectment a condition of the exercise of the Courts' jurisdiction but an appeal being a rehearing of the suit, in appropriate cases it is open to the appellate Court at the hearing of the appeal to relieve the tenant in default against forfeiture. Passing of a decree in ejectment against the tenant by the Court of First Instance does not take away the jurisdiction of the appellate Court to grant equitable relief. This is the view taken by the High Courts in India : see Chilukuri Tripura Sunderamma v. Chilukuri Venkateswarlu alias Ramchandram and Ors.; Janab Vellathi and Ors. v. Smt.K.Kadervel Thayammal; Shri Kishanlal and Ors. v. Ramnath Jankiprasad Ahir and Ors.; Budhi Ballabh and Ors. v. Jai Kishan Kandpal.