Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.42 seconds)
Om Shanti Swarup vs Prasanna Kumar on 9 October, 1974 cites

Namdeo Lokman Lodhi vs Narmadabai And Others on 27 February, 1953

6. Although Section 114 does not lay down any guiding principles on which the discretion should be exercised, it must impliedly have a reference to circumstances which may have compelled the tenant to commit such default as to make his lease become liable to forfeiture. If the circumstances were such which could have rendered the payment of rent by the tenant impossible or difficult, that will be a positive circumstance for consideration in exercise of the Court's discretion. The court can relieve the lessee against the forfeiture if there is sufficient cause shown by the defendant for committing default. In the present case there is nothing to show that the defendant was not able to pay the rent as and when it fell due. There is also nothing to show that he tried to avoid the forfeiture, but could not succeed in doing so. Instead, even though before the institution of the suit notice of demand had been given, no attempt was made by the lessee to pay the arrears of rent. No attempt was made even when the suit was instituted, and the tender was made only after an application was moved by the landlord for striking off the defence under Order 15, Rule 5, C. P. C. In the case of Namdeo Lokman Lodhi v. Narmadabai, AIR 1953 SC 228, the Supreme Court held that the conduct of the parties is a relevant consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 49 - M C Mahajan - Full Document
1