Mere Acceptance Of Rent By Landlord After The Expiry Of Lease Would Not Amount To Waiver Of Termination Of Lease: Supreme Court

Update: 2022-07-02 15:22 GMT

The Supreme Court reiterated that mere acceptance of the rent by the landlord after the expiry of the period of lease would not amount to waiver of the termination of lease.

In a suit for eviction filed by a landlord, the tenant took a contention that there was no valid termination of tenancy as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Accepting this contention, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Allowing the revision petition filed by the plaintiff-landlord under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, the Karnataka High Court held that in view of Section 111(a) of the Act, the lease would determine by the efflux of time and under such circumstances notice of termination under Section 106 of the Act was not required.  Referring to Shanti Prasad Devi & Anr. Vs. Shankar Mahto & Ors. reported in AIR 2005 SC 2905 = (2005) 5 SCC 543, the High Court held that mere acceptance of the landlord after the expiry of the period of lease would not amount to waiver of the termination of lease. Therefore, the defendant, approached the Apex Court by filing a Special Leave Petition.

The Apex Court bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia , referring to evidence on record, noted that the parties have agreed to go by the provisions of the TP Act and thus the lease could be taken as lease for a period of eleven months.

"In view of the evidence thus obtained and taking into account the decision in Shanti Prasad Devi's case (supra) the High Court held that mere acceptance of the rent by the landlord after the expiry of the period of lease would not amount to waiver of the termination of lease. Relying on a Division Bench decision of the High Court in M.C. Mohammed Vs. Smt. Gowramma (AIR 2007 KAR 46) rendered relying on the decision in Pooran Chand Vs. Motilal & Ors. (AIR 1964 SC 461), held that on expiry of the term fixed under the deed the tenant would not be entitled to statutory notice under Section 106 of the TP Act. It was found that on determination of the lease by efflux of time no further termination of the tenancy by issuing a statutory notice to bring termination of a lease already terminated is necessary.", the court observed.

Dismissing the SLP, the bench held that the judgment and decree of the Civil Court was not 'according to law,' and therefore the High Court was certainly within its rights to set aside the decree in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

Case details

K.M. Manjunath Vs Erappa. G (D) | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 561 | SLP(C) 10700 OF 2022 | 24 June 2022

Coram: Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia

Counsel: Adv M.P. Raju, Adv Ravi Sagar, Adv James P. Thomas  

Headnotes

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ; Section 111 - Mere acceptance of the rent by the landlord after the expiry of the period of lease would not amount to waiver of the termination of lease - Referring to Shanti Prasad Devi & Anr. Vs. Shankar Mahto & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 2905. (Para 11)

Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964 ; Section 18 - High Court is empowered to interfere with findings of fact only if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence or suffering from error of law or there has been non-appreciation or non-consideration of a material on record by the court(s) below - That another view is possible based on the evidence on record can be no ground for the High Court to interfere with an order of court(s) below in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction-  When the judgment and decree of the Civil Court is not 'according to law,' the High Court is certainly within its rights to set aside the decree in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. (Para 6, 11)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ; Section 106, 111(a)- On determination of the lease by efflux of time no further termination of the tenancy by issuing a statutory notice to bring termination of a lease already terminated is necessary - Referred to M.C. Mohammed Vs. Smt. Gowramma AIR 2007 KAR 46 and Pooran Chand Vs. Motilal & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 46. (Para 11)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - In a suit for ejectment filed by the landlord the material questions would be whether there was jural relationship of landlord – tenant between the parties and whether tenancy was validly terminated. (Para 8)




Tags:    

Similar News