SECTION 111 (g) to (h) OF THE TRASNFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882

By

H.SIMRAN

18LLB034

Semester: 4th

Name of the programme: 2 year (B.A., LL.B.)

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY

Name of the Faculty Member

P. Jogi Naidu

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYAPRASTHA , SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM – 531035 ANDHRA

PRADESH, INDIA

Date of Submission: 12 Dec 2020

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to our lecturer P. Jogi Naidu Sir who
has given me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic “SECTION
111 (g) to (h) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882” which also helped me in doing a lot of
research and through which I came to know so many new things. I am really thankful to him.
 CONTENTS
TOPIC PAGE NO:
SYNOPSIS 1
LIST OF CASES 4
INTRODUCTION 5
ESSESNTIAL ELEMENTS OF LEASE 6
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AGREEMENT 7
TO LEASE AND LEASE
TERMINATION OF LEASE DEED 9
S.111(g) 10
S.11(h) 16
CONCLUSION 22
REFERENCE 23
 SYNOPSIS
Title: SECTION 111 (g) to (h) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Introduction:

Transfer of immovable property will take place by transferring it from one person to another.
To make the transfer valid it is very essential that the person should be competent to make a
contract and it should not be forbidden by law. Lease under Transfer of Property Act, 1882
deals with section 105 to section 117. A lease can be done only of immovable property. A
lease is the enjoyment of immovable property for a certain period of time or in perpetuity.
But, in lease transfer of immovable property is not absolute like there it is in sale. The right of
possession is separated from the right of ownership.

Aims And Objectives:

The main aim and objective of the project is to make a detailed study on the process of
extradition in India along with the Indian Extradition Act, 1962.

Scope of the study:

The study analysis the ways in which a lease can be determined under S. 111 of the TPA.
Also the main sub sections; 111(g), (h) will be looked into with detail.

Research questions:

1. Whether on alienation of title by tenant, the landlord can re-enter the property and
take possession of it?
2. Whether the the landlord must prove from the notice that he requires the land for
personal use?

Significance of the study:

One of the modes of transfer of immovable property for a particular period of time is lease. A
lease is a transfer of an interest in the property for a stipulated period of time without
transferring the ownership of that property. In a lease, right of possession is transferred
instead of right of ownership. Transferor here is called the lessor and transferee i.e the one
enjoying the property for a period is called lessee.

1
Research Methodology:

The researcher has used doctrinal and analytical method of research. The researcher has
confined her study to various books and articles related to Transfer of Property Act.

Literature review:

R.K Abichandani, Mulla on the Transfer of Property Act,1882. (18th ed.1995). N.M
Tripathi (P) Ltd, Bombay
It is really interesting to go through the book which is mainly a section wise commentary yet
it comprise the merits of both; section-wise and lecture-wise commentaries, as the corelated
matters have been dealt within the particular section. The book has been divided into eight
chapters in addition to a short but impressive ‘introduction’ in the beginning. The
introduction of the book is mainly based on preamble of the act. I deals with the objects and
scope of the enactment. The scope of the Act includes its limitations with respect to subject
matter as well as the mode of transfer and its territorial jurisdiction. A brief reference to
various amendments have been given in the introduction. Each chapter in the book has been
written in an uniform and lucid style wih clear exposition of the law. Th Act in not exhaustive
and it does not profess to be a complete code, therefore, it must be read with relevant
provisions in other laws. The book incorporates all these relevant laws as well as the Benami
Transactions Act, 1988, which affected the provision of Transfer by ostensible owner to a
great extent and marks a distinction amongst other tectbooks written on this subject.

Dr. Avatar Singh, The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882. (6 th ed. 2019). Universal Lexis
Nexis

This book is the most lucid and analytical study of various sections of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882. The book is a section-wise commentary explaining the concepts in detail
with the help of illustrations and judicial precedents. The text in the chapters is divided in
headings and subheadings which make it easy for readers to understand and remember. At the
end of these chapters, the book has provided short notes, often asked questions and also some
practical problems along with their solutions, with an object to render an exhaustive coverage
of the subject at hand.

Chapters:

 INTRODUCTION
 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF LEASE

2
 DIFFERRENCE BETWEEN AGREEMENT TO LEASE AND LEASE
 TERMINATION OF LEASE DEAD
 S. 111(g) OF TPA
 S.111(h) OF TPA
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCE

3
 LIST OF CASES

1. Raunak Ram V. Pishori Singh

2. Girdhari Singh.V. Megh Lal Pandey (1918) 45 Cal 87
3. Chapsibhai.V. Puroshottam AIR 1971 SC 1878
4. Nil Madhab V. Narottam (1890) 17 Cal.826
5. Guru Amarjit Singh V Rattan Chand And Othersair 1994 SC 227
6. Narendra Vyankrtesh Tambat v. Praveen Kumar Khushalchand Tated AIR 2015 NOC
1279 BOM
7. Vijay Kumar & Ors Vs Harbhajan Singh & Ors AIR 34 SCC 436
8. Asghar v U.P, Government AIR 1954 All 649
9. Dagger V Shepherd [1946] 1 All ER 133
10. Achintya Kumar Saha v. Nanee Printers (2004, 12 SCC 368)

4
 I. INTRODUCTION

In India, transfer of property is not possible for every individual because of financial issues.
The permanent or absolute transfer is a luxury for some people, but a temporary transfer is
something that has given every citizen the right of enjoying any property. One of the modes
of transferring property for a particular period of time is Lease. Lease is a transfer of an
interest in the property for a stipulated period of time without transferring the ownership of
that property. In a lease, right of possession is transferred instead of the right of ownership.
Transferor here is called the lessor and the transferee i.e. the one enjoying the property for a
period is called lessee. Lease is governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Transfer of immovable property will take place by transferring it from one person to another.
To make the transfer valid it is very essential that the person should be competent to make a
contract and it should not be forbidden by law.

Lease under Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with section 105 to section 117. A lease can
be done only of immovable property. A lease is the enjoyment of immovable property for a
certain period of time or in perpetuity. But, in lease transfer of immovable property is not
absolute like there it is in sale. The right of possession is separated from the right of
ownership.

A lease is not a transfer of ownership of property, but only possession is given for a certain
time. The transferor is called lessor (landlord), and the transferee is called lessee (tenant).

5
 II. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF LEASE
The term ‘lease’ is defined under Section 105 of the Act and states as follows –

105. A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a
certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or
promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered
periodically or on specific occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the
transfer on such terms.

Thus, a lease of an immovable property is a contract between two principal parties the lessor
and the lessee, whereby the lessor creates an interest in favour of the lessee with regard to
property for a specific duration.

The following conditions must be satisfied to constitute a lease:

1) The parties (the lessor and the lessee): In a lease there is always a requirement of
two parties; the parties are respectively called as the lessor and the lessee. Lease is
based on an agreement made by two persons who are competent to contract. A lessee
can be a juristic person that is, a company or a registered firm etc. If a lease deed is
executed by one of the partners of behalf of the firm, the lessee is the firm not the
partner. In the case of, Raunak Ram V. Pishori Singh, the Supreme Court held that,
after the retirement of that particular partner the lease continues to be exists and there
is no subletting by partner in favour of the firm. The firm continues to be the lessee.

2) The Demise: The Right to enjoy Immovable property: Lease is the transfer of
limited estate. This limited estate which is ‘right of enjoyment’ of property, is called
the demise. So, in lease, the demise is the subject matter of transfer. So, in the case of
Girdhari Singh.V. Megh Lal Pandey1, it was held that; the essential characteristic of
lease is that the property is occupied and the corpus of which does not, by reason of
the user, disappear.

3) The Term: The Duration of Lease: The period for which the right to use the
property is transferred is called the term of the lease. The term may be any period of
time, longer or shorter, or even for perpetuity, but it has to be mentioned in the deed.

1
(1918) 45 Cal 87

6
 In the case of, Chapsibhai.V. Puroshottam 2, the Supreme Court held that, a lease is
permanent lease because the rights of the lessee or tenant are heritable; such leases are
not intended to be only for the life time of the lessee.

4) Consideration: Premium or Rent: Consideration in lease may be premium or rent.

The consideration paid at one time is called as the premium. But the consideration
paid periodically is called as the rent.

III. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AGREEMENT TO

LEASE AND LEASE
Agreement of lease
An Agreement to Lease is a binding contract between the landlord of a commercial property
and a prospective tenant, outlining the basic details of the lease. It is a preliminary short form
document, which is normally prepared by a commercial real estate agent.

An Agreement to Lease is a temporary document until a full lease is executed and contains
only the basic information agreed on by the Landlord and Tenant, e.g. term of lease, rental
and brief description of premises, and also any conditions or additional terms agreed to
between the parties. The Agreement to Lease is then sent to the Landlord’s lawyer for the
Deed of Lease to be prepared using the information in the Agreement to Lease. The Deed of
Lease will contain the full details of the lease.

Lease deed

The next step is for the tenant and the landlord to enter into the standard Deed of Lease,
which is a separate agreement from an Agreement to Lease. This lease is usually prepared by
the landlord’s lawyer. A Deed of Lease will contain all the terms negotiated in the Agreement
to Lease and provide additional terms which go to the day-to-day operation of the lease and
obligations of the parties.

2
AIR 1971 SC 1878

7
It is important to note that it is not essential to sign a Deed of Lease. The Standard Agreement
to Lease provides that the terms and conditions of a Deed of Lease will apply even if one has
not been signed by either the Tenant or the Landlord.

However, it is recommended both the Tenant and the Landlord enter into a Deed of Lease for
the following benefits:

 If a dispute arose between the parties about the lease, the Deed of Lease should be
able to provide the parties with a solution.
 A Deed of Lease allows you to assign or sublet the lease provided you meet the
required conditions.
 If you are selling your business a Deed of Lease will need to be in place.
 An Agreement to Lease binds you to the terms set in the Deed of Lease, so it is
beneficial to be aware of those terms so you know your rights and obligations.

8
 IV. TERMINATION OF THE LEASE DEED
A termination of tenancy is different than an eviction. A termination is the landlord ending
the rental agreement and asking the tenant to vacate the rental unit. A tenant can have their
tenancy terminated and move out without being evicted. An eviction is the actual court
process and lawsuit to have a tenant removed from the property if they fail to leave.

Section 111 states about the determination of the lease, which lays down the ways in which
lease is terminated:

a) Lapse of time – When the prescribed time of the lease expires, the lease is
terminated.
b) Specified event – When there is a condition on time of lease depending upon a
happening of an event.
c) Interest – Lessor’s interest to lease the property may cease, hence resulting in the
termination of the lease.
d) Same owner – When the interest of both lessor and lessee are transferred or vested in
the same person.
e) Express Surrender – This happens when the lessee ceases to have an interest in the
property and comes into a mutual agreement with the lessor.
f) Implied Surrender – When the lessee enters into a contract with another for the lease
of property, this is an implied surrender of the existing lease.
g) Forfeiture
 When there is a breach of an express condition by the lessee. The lessor may
get the possession of the property back.
 When lessee renounces his character or gives the title of the property to a
third person.
 When the lessee is termed as insolvent by the banks, and if the conditions
provide for it, the lease will stand terminated.
h) Expiry of Notice to Quit – When the notice to quit by the lessor to the lessee
expires, the lease will also expire.

9
 V. S. 111(g) OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT

Clause (g): By Forfeiture

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.

(i) Breach of Express Condition

The lease terminates when the express condition is broken by the lessee which had provided
that in case of breach of the condition by the lessee the lessor will re-enter the leased
property. The right of forfeiture is exercised only when the condition is in fact broken.

NIL MADHAB V. NAROTTAM3

Facts:
 The plaintiffs are tenure-holders, and they seek to eject the defendants from some
bastu land which was leased by the plaintiff's predecessors in the tenure to one Jai
Chandra Kundu by a registered lease on 22nd May 1875.
 The lease is a permanent and maurasi one at a fixed rent of Rs. 2-8 per annum, and in
the kabuliyat executed by Jai Chandra Kundu there is a clause by which he stipulates
that he will not transfer in writing in any way to any person the aforesaid bati transfer
shall become void.
 The land was, however, in 1879 sold in execution of a decree obtained against Jai
Chandra Kundu, and the defendants then purchased it and have since then been in
occupation of it.

Plaintifff Arguments:
3
(1890) 17 Cal.826

10
They contend that the covenant in the lease restraining the lessee from alienation has been
broken, and that they are therefore entitled to re-enter and eject the defendants from the land. 

Defendant Arguments:

That the plaintiffs are not entitled to eject the defendants, as the lease contains no clause
giving the lessors aright of re-entry or providing that the lease shall become void in case of a
breach of a covenant against alienation.

Reasoning:

There being no such proviso in the lease, the condition against alienation cannot be said to be
for the benefit of the lessor, and hence it is void under the provisions of Section 10, Act IV of
1882, and the lease cannot be said to have determined under the provisions of Section 111
Clause (g) of the same Act.

even if the lessor had provided in the lease for a right of re-entry in case of a breach of the
covenant against alienation, no such breach as would entitle the lessor to re-enter can in this
case be said to have been committed.

Judgement:

 In the kabuliyat executed by Jai Chandra Kundu, he merely stipulates not to transfer in
writing the land leased to him; but when the land has been sold against his will by the act of a
Court, as in this case, we do not think that he can be said to have voluntarily transferred in
writing the land forming the subject of the contract between him and the plaintiff's lessor.

(ii) Denial of Title

The second condition for forfeiture arises when the lessee denies the lessors’ right and sets up
a title in himself or in a third person. Here the lessee denies his lessors’ title and asserts that
he or some third person is the true owner. The lessor in such a case becomes entitle to forfeit
the tenancy. Repudiation of title or denial of title must be clear and relatable to the
knowledge of the lessor.

GURU AMARJIT SINGH V RATTAN CHAND AND OTHERS4

4
AIR 1994 SC 227

11
Facts:
 The appellant-plaintiff laid the suit for ejectment of the respondents pleading that the
property in question belongs to Guru Naunihal Singh, his grandfather, and he
succeeded by inheritance to 5 Kanals 17 Marlas of land in Kartarpur village. His
grandfather had leased the same to Sardha Ram and Nar Singh Dass, predecessors of
the respondent on October 20, 1905 on payment of Rs 2 as yearly rent.
 First respondent sold 30 Marlas to the defendants 5 to 7 on October 9, 1976 and
defendants 2 to 5 had sold some plots to defendant 8 on January 4, 1968, which came
to his knowledge in 1970.
 A notice of forfeiture under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, was got
issued and served on June 4, 1971 and the suit laid.
Appellant Arguments:
They pleaded that the respondents forfeited their lease by sale of the land to third parties
claiming themselves as owners of the property. Admittedly, the sale deeds have not been
produced. Therefore, in what character the respondents have sold the lands is not proved.
Respondent Arguments:
They pleaded that the father of the first defendant and the father of defendants 2 to 5 died in
the year 1955. They have no knowledge of execution of any lease deed by the predecessor-in-
interest. The land was in possession and enjoyment of their predecessors as owners even prior
to 1905. No lease deed was executed. Even if there was any such lease, it was only nominal
and never intended to be acted upon. They did not pay any rent to the appellant.
Alternatively they pleaded they had prescribed adverse possession as they were not paying
any rent at any time since 1905, but as owners they have been paying property tax to the
Government. On merits they denied the allegations made in the plaint. They disclaimed any
receipt of notice prior to the suit.
Reasoning:
First clause of Section 111 has no application to the facts of this case as there was no
covenant prohibiting sale or on its breach providing the right of re-entry. Accordingly the suit
is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Then it was contended that since the
respondents had set up title in themselves renouncing their character as tenants and also
pleaded adverse possession in the written statement, it entails forfeiture under clause (2) of
Section 111(g) and thereby the appellant became entitled to have the respondents ejected in

12
this suit. That was rejected holding that the respondents had not unequivocably set up adverse
possession or title in themselves.
Sardha Ram and Nar Singh Dass, sons of Bihari appear to have executed a deed, ryatanama.
It was mentioned therein that their predecessors had already constructed permanent house and
they were living therein. They were also in possession and enjoyment of the property. They
undertook to pay ground rent at the rate of Rs 2 per annum and on their committing default,
right of re-entry was provided. There is no covenant therein that they have no right to sell the
property in their occupation and enjoyment or on breach thereof right of re-entry was
provided for. Therefore, the first clause of Section 111(g) has no application and the
foundation of the plaintiff's case in his pleading of forfeiture by sale of land to defendants 6
to 8 had fallen to the ground.
There must be a renunciation of the character of the lessee as such either by setting up a title
in himself or in other person or unequivocal plea of adverse possession. But the repudiation
must be clear and unequivocal and anterior to the issuance of the notice determining the lease
under Section 111(g) of the Act and must put the lessor to notice of determination of the
lease. The disclaimer may be in the pleading anterior to the suit in question or in any other
documents, but directly relatable to the knowledge of the lessor. An incidental statement per
se does not operate forfeiture.
Judgement:
predecessors of respondents Sardha Ram and Nar Singh Dass, had already constructed the
buildings and they were in enjoyment of the land and buildings and they continued to enjoy
the property. The statutory operation of law conferring title was pleaded. The respondents
were not parties to the lease deed and they had no knowledge of it. There is no proof, that
they had knowledge of 1905 lease or that they acknowledged or acted on it. There is no clear
proof of finding that they received any notice under Section 111(g) said to have been issued
by the appellant. The respondents had no knowledge of the entries in the Jamabandi.
Since a conflict of rights and interests occur over the property, the tenancy becomes liable to
be forfeited by the lessor and the lease stands determined. It was said that this denying of title
shall be clear, and relatable to the knowledge of the lessor.

Narendra Vyankrtesh Tambat v. Praveen Kumar Khushalchand Tated 5 where, in an

ongoing lawsuit, the tenant came to challenge the title of the landlord on the property. The
landlord served the notice of forfeiture of tenancy upon the tenant for the act. It was held that
5
AIR 2015 NOC 1279 BOM

13
challenging the title in the proceedings was a conscious decision and hence opens up the
property for forfeiture .

(iii) Insolvency

Where the lease deed contains a condition that in case the lessee is adjudicated insolvent the
lessor will re-enter the property and where actually the lessee is adjudicated insolvent, the
lessor will forfeit the lease. Notice in writing is necessary to forfeit the lease in such a case.

If the lessee is adjudicated insolvent by a competent court, then that can be a ground for
forfeiture of property, provided that the lease contained a provision to that effect which
allows the lessor to reclaim possession if adjudicated insolvent.

Waiver of Forfeiture

Principle
Section 112 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 lays down the provision regarding the
waiver of forfeiture. It says that forfeiture under section 111, clause (g), is waived by
acceptance of rent which has become due since the forfeiture, or by distress for such rent, or
by any other act on the part of the lessor showing an intention to treat the lease as subsisting.
In all these cases the lessor is estopped from, afterwards, enforcing forfeiture. But, of course,
there can be no waiver of that the lessor does not know., and the rule is therefore subject to
the proviso which enacts that lessor shall not be deemed to have waived forfeiture under any
of the above circumstances unless “he is aware that the forfeiture is incurred” at the time he
elects to waive it.6This section is intended only for the benefit of the landlord and whether or
not there was a waiver or not there was a waiver of forfeiture depends upon the action of only
one party, namely, the landlord independent of tenant.7

Sec 112 enacts that a forfeiture incurred under Sec 111(g) could be waived in any of the
following cases:-

 By Acceptance of rent accrued due after the forfeiture was incurred, but if it be
accepted after institution of an ejectment suit against the lessee it is no waiver.
 By distress for rent accrued due after the forfeiture was incurred.
 By the lessor doing an act shewing an intention to treat the lease as subsisting.

6
Clough v. London and N.W. Ry. Co., L.R. 7 Ex. 34
7
Puran Mal Jaiswal v. Onkar Nath Chaudhary, 1958 Bih LJ 766 at p. 769

14
Provided, that the lessor was aware of his rights that the forfeiture was incurred.

15
 VI. S.111(h) OF TRANSFER OF PEROPERTY
ACT

Clause (h): On Expiration Of Notice To Quit.

On the expiration of a notice to determine the lease, or to quit, or of intention to quit, the
property leased, duly given by one party to the other.

Clause (h) provides that the lease of immovable property may determine on the expiration of
a notice to determine the lease, or to quit, or of intention to quit, the property leased, duly
given by one party to the other.

Sec 111(h) talks about the determination of lease by notice to quit. A lease may be terminated
by a notice to quit given by the lessor, or of his intention to quit given by the lessee. A lease
may be terminated on the expiration of a notice to determine the lease, or to quit, or of
intention to quit, the property leased, duly given by one party to another.8 In other words, a
tenancy at will is terminated by a demand for possession. A tenancy for a fixed term
determines on the expiration of the term. A periodic tenancy, however, is terminated only by
a proper notice to quit. Since notice is a unilateral act performed in the exercise of a
contractual right, it must conform to the terms of the contract; 9 and the onus of proof of its
validity is upon the person who gives it.

When the time stated in such notice expires, so does the lease unless another notice is served
or extension is given in any other way. Periodic leases which operate on a month-to-month or
year-to-year basis are required to operate on notice to quit. Lease with fixed pre-decided
terms are not required to, but they may have a condition allowing the party to withdraw from
it earlier than the fixed term upon serving a notice. In any case, expiry of notice is the
determination of the lease.

Notice to quit:

8
Periaswami Pillai v. Sri Arunjadeswaraswamy Temple, AIR 1967 Mad 257
9
Dugger v. Shepherd, (1946) 1 All ER 133

16
Notice to quit is a formal written statement that is issued to the lessee if the lessor desires to
end the lease agreement, whether on the expiry of the duration as stated under Section 106 or
on grounds specified in Section 111.

Any lease can be forfeited as mentioned in the sub-clause (g) of Section 111, by acceptance
of the notice to quit.

A valid notice must satisfy the following three requisites-

 It must expressly convey the intention to terminate the tenancy.

 It must specify the date on which the tenancy is to expire.
 It must be unconditional. Thus a notice given by a tenant that he will quit when he
gets another suitable accommodation is not valid.

But Section 112, states that if the lessor after initiating the process of termination of the lease
on the grounds of forfeiture accepts any rent from the lessee, it will be understood that the
lease will still exist and the termination and notice to quit has been waived.

VIJAY KUMAR & ORS VS HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS10

Facts:

 The respondents(landlords) Harbhajan Singh and Harvinder Singh who are brothers,
filed an eviction petition against the petitioners(tenants) on the ground that the
property in question is required by them as both of them have their respective
families.
 They are at present living in a house along with their father which now is not
sufficient to accommodate such a big family especially when there is an altercation
with the father now.
 It was also averred that the petitioners (tenants) have ceased to occupy the premises in
question since the year 1992 and thus are entitled to eviction on this ground as well.
 Finally it was stated that since the house has been locked for so many years and the
rain water enters the house in dispute, therefore, it has also become unfit and unsafe
for human habitation. Thus eviction was sought.
10
AIR 34 SCC 436

17
Issues: Whether the Notice to quit issued was valid in this case?

Arguments of Plaintiff:

It was stated that the transfer of property in favour of the respondents(landlords) by the
original owner is malafide and only a way to create ground of personal necessity. It was also
stated that there is no personal necessity as alleged by the respondents(landlords) and the
petitioners(tenants) are occupying the demised premises since the inception of tenancy and,
therefore, no ground for cease to occupy or the building becoming unfit and unsafe is made
out as they are still residing in the demised premises.

Arguments of Defendants:

They contended that the notice under 111(h) was proper as the yearlong agreement contained
a clause stating that lessee would vacate the shop when required by the landlord for the
personal use. Thus issuance of notice for the same is valid and the tenants must be evicted.

Reasoning:

Eviction petition the court is to decide only the relationship of landlord and tenant. question
of title is concerned, that can only be incidentally gone into but cannot be decided finally. It
has further been held that a tenant cannot deny title of landlord, however, defective it may be
until and unless he claims ownership. A tenant cannot be allowed to raise a question of title
especially when prima facie title is in favour of landlords is proved. In eviction proceedings
under the Rent Act, the courts are only required to see as to whether there exists a prima facie
relationship of landlord and tenant among the parties or not. The second question that
authorities under the Rent Act need to decide is that if ownership had changed hands from
one person to another, whether the person who has filed the ejectment application is the
owner and consequently the landlord of the tenants or not. Once that is proved, no further
inquiry is required by the courts to go into at the time of deciding the ejectment application.

Judgement:

The landlord has given the right of ejection as the notice was rightly served. The tenants have
not proved that transaction of the respondents and the original owner of the land; was a sham.
Also the building was in a shabby condition making it unfit for human living. This the court
found no merit in the case and dismissed the case.

18
Asghar v U.P, Government11 - A breach of a condition,only makes the lease voidable. It is
to be remembered that the forfeiture is not complete unless and until the lessor gives notice
that he has exercised his option to determine the lease.

DAGGER V SHEPHERD12
Facts:
The appellant was the landlord of a house to which the Rent Restrictions Acts applied. The
house was let to the respondent under an agreement for one year from 25 March 1939, at a
rent of £50 per annum. The agreement further provided that the respondent was to have the
option of remaining on the premises thereafter as a quarterly tenant, subject to a
determination of the tenancy by 3 months' notice. The respondent stayed on for a number of
years without expressly exercising his option. On 20 December 1944, the appellant's agent
served the respondent with written notice to quit “on or before 25 March next.” The appellant
then brought an action for possession on the ground that the alleged contractual tenancy had
been duly determined by the notice to quit. At the trial the county court judge, without
considering any other questions raised in the pleadings, dismissed the appellant's claim on the
ground that the phrase “on or before” in the notice to quit rendered it uncertain and
ambiguous. The appellant appealed
Judgement:
The notice to quit served on the respondent was valid and effective, since it specified the
date, ie, 25 March 1945, on which the tenancy was to end. The insertion of the words” on or
before” in the notice to quit was, on a proper construction, an offer to the tenant to accept
from him a determination of the tenancy on any earlier date than that named on which he
would give up possession of the premises.

It has been decided in the case of Achintya Kumar Saha v. Nanee Printers 13 that:
in view of the rent control laws and the concept of statutory tenancy evolved in the respect of
urban building it is now generally necessary to determine tenancy by a notice to quit before
claiming ejectment on grounds admissible under such laws.

 Narayan v. Kunbhan Mannudiar. Some of the common grounds to begin the

process of eviction include:
11
AIR 1954 All 649
12
[1946] 1 All ER 133
13
(2004, 12 SCC 368)

19
 Failure of the tenant to pay rent (not at agreed time or not all): If the tenant is even
late by 15 days, the landlord has an opportunity to evict the tenant. Eviction notice
can be issued if the tenant neither pays the rent nor vacates the rented property.
 Tenant causing damage to the property: The landlord can ask the tenant to evict the
property, if he by any means causes any damage to the property of the landlord.
 Causing health or safety hazards on the property of the lessor: The tenant must take
proper care while doing anything on the rented property and if does something that
may cause harm to the health or safety of the landlord or his family, he can be asked
to vacate the place.
 Violation of the terms of the rental or the lease agreement by the lessee: The tenant
must abide by all the clauses agreed upon in the rental/ lease agreement while signing
the contract and must not to anything against the same.
 Tenant uses the land for unlawful purposes: The tenant can be asked to leave the
property if he uses it for some illegal purposes or purposes not mentioned in the
agreement;
 If there is some urgent need of property by the owner: If the owner needs the property
for his personal use or any of his family member needs it urgently, the eviction notice
can be issued.

Waiver of Notice to Quit

According to Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; a notice to quit is waived
with the implied or express consent of the person to whom it is given, by any act on the part
of the person giving it showing an intention to treat the lease as subsisting.
Principle
Once a valid notice is given, the tenancy will be determined upon its expiration. The parties
can waive the notice. The consent of the parties makes a new agreement. The parties can
nullify the operation of the notice as to quitting, by agreeing upon a new tenancy, whether on
the terms of the former or not, to commence from the time of its expiration. However the
tenant has to establish that the rent taken by the landlord was legal rent indicating his assent
to the former’s continuing in possession.
A waiver of notice to quit cannot be merely inferred by an act on part of one of the parties
and either one of the actions or any act which thereby does not spell a contract or agreement
between the parties to a particular effect spelling a waiver. Waiver essentially presupposes an

20
election by the landlord and also on the part of the tenant where the tenant consents to the
notice being waived. An election is not a matter of inference but is a matter of positive
choice. Hence an election should not be merely inferred from the circumstances that after the
institution of the suit for the ejectment, payment was received by the landlord.
Section 113 would come into picture only when there is an act on the part of the lessor
showing an intention to treat the lease as subsisting. There could not be any occasion for the
landlord to show such an intention when he has already filed a suit on the basis of the
termination of tenancy. In such a case, it is the suit that has to be decided and mere payment
of some amount of rent would be irrelevant, unless a party pleads and proves that on account
of the said payment, there was a compromise of the suit.

VII. CONCLUSION

21
Sec 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882(herein after referred as Act) talks about
determination of lease. For example, by efflux of time, or where such time is limited
conditionally on the happening of some event, or where the interest of the lessor in the
property terminates on by the happening of such event. Clause (g) of the section lays down
the determination of lease by forfeiture.According to the provision, a lease of an immovable
property determines by forfeiture in breach of express condition or disclaimer or denial of the
landlord’s title or if in case the lessee being judged insolvent. Further, clause (h) talks about
determination of lease on expiration of notice to quit or on the expiration of a notice to
determine the lease or of intention to quit the property leased.

However, Section 111 and 112 of the Act provides expressly for waiver of right to
determination of lease and lays down the conditions in which this right is waived.

in order to conclude, after having a detailed look on the determination of lease by way of
forfeiture or by way of notice to quit and also the provisions related to their forfeiture as
specified in Sec 112 and 113 of the Act, it can be clearly inferred that if there is a breach of
condition by the lessee, the lease is not determined ipso facto but it gives an option to the
lessor to elect whether he would determine the tenancy or not. This is so because of the
policy of the courts that is to lean against forfeiture and therefore if the lessor with full
knowledge that the forfeiture has incurred, acknowledges the continuance of the tenancy, he
will be deemed to have waived the forfeiture. The intention to waive forfeiture implies that
the person waiving it is aware of the fact that there has been forfeiture .

Similarly, in order to constitute a waiver of notice to quit, the tenant has to prove that the
landlord, by accepting the sent for the period subsequent to the termination of tenancy, had an
intention to treat the lease as subsisting. However, in the absence of any such intention on the
part of landlord being proved, mere acceptance of rent during the pendency of the ejectment
suit cannot amount to waiver.

Moreover, there is distinction between the two sections that is prima facie evident from the
bare perusal of the sections i.e. the forfeiture can be waived without the consent of the lessee,
whereas in a waiver to notice to quit, the consent of the lessee is necessary.

REFERENCE:

22
BOOKS:

 Mulla, Transfer of Property Act, 13th edition 2018, Lexis Nexis

 H.S Gour’s, The Transfer of Property Act, 9th edition, 1999, Delhi Law House

WEBSITE:

 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2191951
 http://www.goforthelaw.com/articles/fromlawstu/article28.htm
 http://www.aaptaxlaw.com/transfer-of-property-act/section-111-transfer-of-property
-property-act-1882.html
 MANUPATRA
 WESTLAW

23
24