Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 521 (RAJ)

Manohar Lal v. Civil Judge (JD) Bayana

2005-02-16

K.S.RATHORE

body2005
Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.- This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.1.2005 passed by civil Judge (JD) Bayana by which the application under section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act has been rejected. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Transfer of Property Act, the trial Court ought to have accepted the arrears which are offered by the petitioner but the same has not been accepted. The rights of the petitioner is protected under the Transfer of Property Act, therefore, application under the Transfer of Property Act has been moved. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned as well as the material available on the record and the provisions referred before me. Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act reads as under:- "Where a lease of immoveable property has determined by forfeiture for non-payment of rent, and the lessor sues to eject the lessee, if , at the hearing of the suit, the lessee 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 may, in lieu of making a 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". 4. Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act reads as under:-By forfeiture; that is to say, (1) in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that, on breach thereof , the lessor may re-enter or (2) in case the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself; or (3) the lessee is adjudicated an insolvent and the lease provides that the lessor may re-enter on the happening of such event and in any of these cases the lessor or his transferee gives notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease: 5. Upon perusal of the order impugned it reveals that the petitioner failed to deposit the rent from 4.2002 to 38.2003 i.e., about 17 months to the tune of Rs. 3,825/- and the notice was also given by the landlord to deposit the same and failing which the petitioner tenant should handover the vacant possession of the premises in question. 6. Upon perusal of the order impugned it reveals that the petitioner failed to deposit the rent from 4.2002 to 38.2003 i.e., about 17 months to the tune of Rs. 3,825/- and the notice was also given by the landlord to deposit the same and failing which the petitioner tenant should handover the vacant possession of the premises in question. 6. Upon perusal of Sections 114 and 111(g) it appears that the Court below has not committed any error while giving the finding and I am fully agree with the reasons assigned by the trial Court. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 7.1.2005 does not require any interference by this Court. 7. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no orders as to cost. 8. However, the petitioner is given liberty to raise legal issues permissible under law before the trial Court.