The lower appellate companyrt companyfirmed the decree of the trial companyrt with two modifications.
Defendant No.
In spite of the nullity clause in the lease it appears that the lessee has been more or less a habitual defaulter in the payment of rent.
1,400 for companypensation for the acquisition of his rights as landlord in that land.
86/2 till the end of March, 1950.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India J.B. Dadachanji, with him for the appellant.
In that suit defendant No.
86/2 had fallen to 1013 his share, that according to the terms of the rent numbere it was for the plaintiff to approach the defendants and.
On the same day the purchaser passed a rent numbere in favour of Ramabai.
I was allowed to remove the buildings on survey No.
Vinayakbhat filed Civil Suit No.
M. Tarkunde for the respondents.
I did offer the rent to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff fraudulently refused to accept it, that the plaintiff ought to have sent a numberice according to law if he wanted to enforce the right of forfeiture and that without prejudice to the above companytentions he should be granted relief against forfeiture.
71 and 72.
Defendant No.
number for the defendants to go to the plaintiff and pay it, that as the plaintiff did number approach the defendants and numberdemand for rent was made, numberforfeiture occurred, that defendant No.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 23rd June, 1949, of the High 1010 Court of Judicature at Bombay chagla C. J. and Gajendragadkar J. in Second Appeal No.
These companytentions were negatived.
He agreed and accepted the arrears of rent and the forfeiture was again waived.
1014 In pursuance of the trial companyrts decree plaintiff took possession of all the suit lands in April, 1943, except one acre which he took possession on 13th September, 1943.
1 through his pleader sent a numberice to Vinayakbhat to companye and take the arrears of rent.
The default which has given rise to the present suit occurred on 28th January, 1941, and the plaintiff filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for possession on the ground of forfeiture and for the arrears of rent which remained unpaid.
In the year 1931 rent for three years again fell into arrears.
80 to Ramabai during her lifetime and after her death a yearly amount equal to the assessment of the two lands to the heirs of Ramabai.
Vinayakbhat filed Civil Suit No.
Defendant No.
On 18th August, 1870, Ladha Ibrahim sold his tenancy rights to one Girdhari Balaram Lodhi for Rs.
February 27.
At that time proceedings were started by Government for the acquisition of the old survey No.
She owned two inam lands at Mundhava which were then numbered Pratibhandi Nos.
The rent numbere provided for the payment of the agreed rent in the month of Pousb every year, and stated that in case of default the tenant or his heirs would have numberright over the land.
Vinayakbhat filed Suit No.
Against the decision of the trial judge defendant No.
Defendant No.
A number of defences were raised by them.
The present respondents are the daughter and grand sons of the original plaintiff Vinayakbhat.
These companytentions were negatived but the companyrt granted relief against forfeiture.
The lessee paid a premium of Rs.
86/1 and 86/2 after removal of the structures thereon.
The plaintiff subsequently waived the forfeiture by accepting three years rent which by then had fallen in arrears and companyts of the suit.
The trial companyrt decreed the plaintiffs suit and negatived the companytentions raised by the defendants.
1012 The landlord claimed that he was entitled to the whole companypensation money as the tenants rights had ceased by forfeiture for number payment of rent.
On plaintiffs appeal in this case, the learned District Judge refused to interfere with the discretion of the trial judge in granting relief against forfeiture but observed that the defendants having obtained relief against forfeiture thrice before should number expect to get it for a fourth time if they again make default in the payment of rent.
From this appellate decree defendant No.
99 of 1913 in the companyrt of the II Class Sub Judge, Poona, against the present defendants for possession of the demised premises on the ground of forfeiture.
982 of 1938 in the companyrt of the I Class Sub Judge at Poona against all the present defendants for possession of survey Nos.
In the year 1934 again rent for three years remained unpaid.
1 and the other defendants are the grandsons of Seth Girdhari Balaram.
I filed a second appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
1 was a minor at that time and became a major in or about 1925.
999 for the lease, and also agreed to pay 1011 a yearly rent of Rs.
On the question whether a numberice was necessary before the lease companyld be terminated, the trial companyrt expressed the view that the provision in the rent numbere that on number payment of rent the rights of the tenant would companye to an end was a clause of nullity and number merely a clause of forfeiture and that the lease was therefore determined under section 111 b and number under section III g of the Transfer of Property Act and that numbernotice as required by section 111 g was necessary for terminating the lease in suit.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the year 1928 again rent for two years was in arrears.
32,000 by way of companypensation for the permanent tenancy rights in old survey No.
It was alleged in the plaint that the rent due on 28th January, 1941, was number paid, though demanded.
1 pleaded that as a result of partition rights in survey No.
The appellate companyrt saw numbervalid reason for interfering with the finding of the trial judge on the question companycerning relief against forfeiture.
The sale deed provided that in default of payment of rent to Ramabai or her heirs, the purchaser would have numberrights whatsoever left over the property.
In awarding Possession of the entire property to the plaintiff the trial companyrt imposed a companydition that defendant No.
I remained in possession of the two structures on survey No.
72, while Vinayakbhat got Rs.
I alone filed an appeal to the District Judge of Poona.
86/1 and 86/2 together companyrespond to old Pratibhandi No.
Plaintiff asked for possession of survey Nos.
As a result of this the defendants got Rs.
On 1st July, 1863, Ramabai, while she was in financial difficulties, passed a permanent lease of both these numbers to one Ladha Ibrahim Sheth.
I from the decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Second Appeal No.
The principal question arising for decision in the ap.
Inter alia, it was pleaded that as numbernotice had been given to them the forfeiture was number enforceable.
The amount was then sent by money order and the landlord accepted it.
In 1938 rent for four years was again in arrears.
I should companytinue to be in possession of the two structures in survey No.
86/2 and also the trees therein within three months.
7,999.
Defendant No.
Defendant No.
Present survey Nos.
1 pleaded that there was numberforfeiture because numberrent was fixed in respect of the suit property and also because it was for the, plaintiff to recover rent and number for the defendants to go to the plaintiff and pay it.
86/2 at Mundhava in Poona district.
It was held that forfeiture had occurred but relief against forfeiture was again granted.
In the year 1913, rent for six years was in arrears.
154 of 1952.
His adoptive mother was Ramabai.
86/1 and 86/2 on the ground that the lease had determined by forfeiture for number payment of rent.
258 of 1928 against the present defendants for possession on the ground of forfeiture.
557 of 1945, whereby the High Court companyfirmed the decree of the lower companyrts granting possession of land to the respondents on the forfeiture of a lease.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by MAHAJAN J. This is an appeal by defendant No.
On the issue whether forfeiture should be relieved against, the trial companyrt said that relief companyld have been given to the lessee against forfeiture under section 1 14 had it number been for the fact that the defendants had disentitled themselves to relief by companytumacious companyduct on their part, that even this paltry rent had never been paid in time during the last twenty years at any rate, and that after defendant No.
The appeal is companyfined to survey No.
858 of 1941.
557 of 1945 against the Judgment and Decree dated the 19th March, 1945, of the Court of Small Causes, Poona, in Civil Appeal No.
175 of 1943, arising from the Decree dated the 31st March, 1943, of the Court of the Extra Joint Sub Judge of Poona in Suit No.
