LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Mere Acceptance Of Rent By Landlord After The Expiry Of Lease Would Not Amount To Waiver Of Termination Of Lease: Supreme Court Sri K.M. Manjunath Vs. Sri Erappa G Dead Through LRS

Krisha Mehta ,
  03 October 2022       Share Bookmark

Court :
Supreme court of India
Brief :

Citation :
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO.10700 OF 2022

Case Title:
SRI K.M. MANJUNATH versus SRI ERAPPA. G DEAD THROUGH LRS

Bench:
C.T. RAVIKUMAR; SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.

Order Date
19-4-2022

Subject

  • A case was filed for eviction by a landlord.
  • In the case, the tenant took a contention that under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the termination of the tenancy was not valid.
  • The trial court dismissed the case by accepting the contention.
  • The landlord filed a revision petition in the Karnataka High Court.
  • The high court referred to Shanti Prasad Devi &Anr. Vs. Shankar Mahto&Ors.
  • And observed that mere acceptance of the landlord after the expiry of the period of lease would not amount to waiver of the termination of lease.
  • Disappointed by the judgement again, the defendant filed a special provision in the Supreme Court.

Important Provisions

Section 106 of the TP Act - The primary contention in the matter was the applicability of section 106 of the ToP Act, which provides that where there is no written contract for the lease of immovable property, not being leased for agricultural or manufacturing purposes, the period of the lease shall be deemed to be from month to month and terminable by 15 (fifteen) days’ notice. The contention of the petitioner-lessee before the Small Causes Court was that no valid notice was served by the respondent-lessor as per this provision. Based on the aforesaid, the Small Causes Court ruled in favour of the petitioner-lessee. However, based on the aforementioned evidence evaluation, the High Court determined that the lease in this case stood determined by virtue of section 111(a) of the ToP Act, which provides that a lease may come to an end by efflux of time limited therein.

The Supreme Court, in the Special Leave Petition, took note of the contention of the petitioner-lessee that after the expiry of the period of the last lease agreement, the petitioner-lessee was continuing as a tenant in sufferance and had paid the rent till the date of the filing of the suit for ejectment.

Overview

The tenant observed that there was no legal termination of the lease as against the landlord’s eviction claim under section 106 of the TP Act 1882. The contention being dismissed by the trail court, the plaintiff-revision petition filed under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, the Karnataka High Court held that, under Section 111(a) of the Act, the lease would be determined by the passage of time and that, in such circumstances, notice of termination under Section 106 of the Act was not required. Further a petition was filed in the SC. The SC held that the order that was passed by the High Court in exercise of its power of revision under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act was impugned. The Supreme Court stated that it needs no reiteration 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.

Issues Raised

  • Whether the mere acceptance of the rent by the landlord after the expiry of the period of lease would amount to waiver of the termination of lease.

Judgement Analysis

  • The Supreme court has appreciated the reiteration of the High Court, based on the precedents relied upon by the High Court, that mere acceptance of the rent does not amount to a waiver of the termination of the tenancy.
  • The Supreme court allowed the request of the petitioner-lessee for a grant of a period of six months to vacate the premises of the shop and also to hand over any property authorised to the respondent.
  • An affidavit to pay the arrears of rent at the rate of INR 1400 per month was decided by the court as a subject to the extension granted.
  • Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court and dismissed the Special Leave Petition for being devoid of merit.

Conclusion

Any grey area in law can become a complicated situation eventually specially in unspecified contracts. The facts of the case clearly show that the absence of such agreed timelines can further trigger disputes between the parties. The non-waiver of termination by the supreme court captures the duration of lease must be very clear in the agreements.

Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE

 
"Loved reading this piece by Krisha Mehta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Others
Views : 605




Comments







Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query