Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals by Hindustan Petroleum and Dealer in Eviction Suit — Lease Termination Valid Under Section 111(g) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Notice to Quit Properly Served and Not Waived by Acceptance of Rent.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 30
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves two appeals arising from a suit for eviction filed by Dilip Prabhakar Dingorkar (the owner/lessor) against M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and M/s. Ideal Automobiles (the dealer/lessee). The owner had leased the property to HPCL, which sub-leased it to Ideal Automobiles. The owner issued a notice to quit to both parties, terminating the lease and demanding possession. HPCL and Ideal Automobiles refused to vacate, leading to the suit. The trial court decreed eviction, and the first appellate court confirmed. In second appeal, the High Court considered whether the notice to quit was valid and whether acceptance of rent after the notice constituted waiver. The court held that the notice was validly served by registered post and refusal by the lessee amounted to service. The notice clearly terminated the lease. Regarding waiver, the court found that the owner accepted rent under protest and without prejudice, which did not waive the notice. The court also noted that the premises were non-residential, so the Bombay Rent Act did not apply. The appeals were dismissed, and the eviction decree was upheld.

Headnote

A) Transfer of Property Act - Lease Termination - Notice to Quit - Section 111(g) - Validity of notice - The court considered whether a notice to quit issued by the lessor to the lessee was valid and effective in terminating the lease. The notice was sent by registered post and refused by the lessee. The court held that service by registered post is sufficient and refusal amounts to service. The notice clearly stated the intention to terminate the lease and demand possession. (Paras 1-10)

B) Transfer of Property Act - Waiver - Acceptance of Rent - Section 111(g) - Effect of acceptance of rent after notice - The court examined whether the lessor's acceptance of rent after the notice to quit constituted waiver of the notice. The court held that acceptance of rent after notice does not necessarily waive the notice if it is accepted as damages for use and occupation or without prejudice to the notice. The facts showed that the lessor accepted rent under protest and without prejudice. (Paras 11-15)

C) Transfer of Property Act - Service of Notice - Registered Post - Refusal - Section 106 - The court held that service of notice by registered post is valid service under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and refusal by the addressee does not invalidate service. The notice was properly addressed and posted. (Paras 5-8)

D) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Applicability - Non-residential premises - The court noted that the premises were non-residential and the Act did not apply to such premises. Therefore, the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 governed the lease. (Paras 2-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the lease was validly terminated by notice to quit under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and whether the acceptance of rent after the notice constituted waiver of the notice.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Both second appeals were dismissed. The eviction decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court was upheld. The defendants were ordered to vacate the premises and deliver possession to the owner.

Law Points

  • Lease termination by notice under Section 111(g) Transfer of Property Act
  • 1882
  • Notice to quit must be clear and unambiguous
  • Acceptance of rent after notice does not waive notice if accepted as damages or without prejudice
  • Service of notice by registered post is sufficient even if refused
  • Section 106 Transfer of Property Act
  • 1882 requires 15 days notice for monthly tenancy
  • Section 108 Transfer of Property Act
  • 1882 lessee's duty to pay rent
  • Section 114 Transfer of Property Act
  • 1882 relief against forfeiture not applicable to notice to quit
  • Section 12 Bombay Rents
  • Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
  • 1947 no protection for non-residential premises
  • Section 13 Bombay Rents
  • 1947 eviction on ground of default
  • Section 5(11)(c) Bombay Rents
  • 1947 definition of landlord includes lessor
  • Section 5(8) Bombay Rents
  • 1947 definition of tenant includes lessee
  • Section 111(g) Transfer of Property Act
  • 1882 lease determined by notice to quit
  • 1882 duration of certain leases in absence of contract
  • 1882 rights and liabilities of lessee
  • 1882 relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent
  • 1947 when tenant may be evicted
  • 1947 when landlord may recover possession
  • 1947 definition of landlord
  • 1947 definition of tenant
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (05) 182

Second Appeal No. 615 of 2004 and Second Appeal No. 1281 of 2004

2005-05-06

D. G. Deshpande

Mr. M. D. Siodia and Ms. D. S. Retiwala i/b. Rustomji & Ginwalla Co. for Appellants in First Appeal No. 615 of 2004 and for Respondent No.2 in Second Appeal No. 1281 of 2004; Mr. Shrihari Anne (Senior Advocate) with R. S. Datar for Respondent No.1 in both Appeals; Mr. V. Y. Sanglikar i/b. D. R. Singh for Appellant in Second Appeal No. 1281 of 2004 and for Respondent No.2 in Appeal No. 615 of 2004

M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in Second Appeal No. 615 of 2004) and M/s. Ideal Automobiles (in Second Appeal No. 1281 of 2004)

Dilip Prabhakar Dingorkar (owner/lessor)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for eviction and possession of leased premises.

Remedy Sought

The plaintiff/owner sought eviction of the defendants (HPCL and Ideal Automobiles) from the leased property and recovery of possession.

Filing Reason

The owner issued a notice to quit terminating the lease, but the defendants refused to vacate, claiming the notice was invalid and that acceptance of rent after the notice constituted waiver.

Previous Decisions

The trial court decreed eviction in favor of the owner. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. The defendants filed second appeals before the High Court.

Issues

Whether the notice to quit issued by the owner was valid and effective in terminating the lease under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Whether the acceptance of rent by the owner after the notice to quit constituted waiver of the notice.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants (HPCL and Ideal Automobiles) argued that the notice to quit was not validly served and that the owner's acceptance of rent after the notice amounted to waiver of the notice, thereby continuing the lease. Respondent (owner) argued that the notice was properly served by registered post and refused by the lessee, and that rent was accepted under protest and without prejudice, which did not waive the notice.

Ratio Decidendi

A notice to quit under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, validly terminates a lease if it is clear and unambiguous. Service by registered post is sufficient, and refusal by the addressee constitutes service. Acceptance of rent after the notice does not waive the notice if it is accepted under protest or without prejudice to the notice. The Bombay Rent Act does not apply to non-residential premises, so the Transfer of Property Act governs.

Judgment Excerpts

The notice to quit was sent by registered post and was refused by the lessee. Service by registered post is sufficient and refusal amounts to service. Acceptance of rent after notice to quit does not necessarily waive the notice if it is accepted as damages for use and occupation or without prejudice.

Procedural History

The owner filed a suit for eviction in the trial court. The trial court decreed eviction. The defendants appealed to the first appellate court, which confirmed the decree. The defendants then filed second appeals before the High Court, which were dismissed.

Acts & Sections

  • Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 106, Section 108, Section 111(g), Section 114
  • Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 5(8), Section 5(11)(c), Section 12, Section 13
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Invalidation of Scheduled Caste Certificate on Ground of Conversion to Christianity. Court holds that conversion to Christianity does not automatically result in loss of Scheduled Caste status; burde...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals by Hindustan Petroleum and Dealer in Eviction Suit — Lease Termination Valid Under Section 111(g) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Notice to Quit Properly Served and Not Waived by Acceptance of Rent.