Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Regular First Appeal filed by the defendant, M/s. Auto World, a registered partnership firm, against the judgment and decree dated 6.11.2014 passed by the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.4950/2009. The suit was filed by the respondent, Smt. K.V. Sathyavathi, for ejectment of the defendant from the premises and recovery of arrears of rent. The defendant had been inducted into the premises more than three decades ago by the plaintiff's husband and carried on business of sale of automobile spares and accessories. The parties reduced the lease terms into writing on 21.5.2004 for a period of four and a half years, renewable at the option of the parties. The plaintiff issued a notice of termination of tenancy dated 21.8.2008 on the expiry of the lease term. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff had agreed to renegotiate a renewed lease deed but instead filed a suit for ejectment, which was initially decreed ex-parte. The defendant later had the decree recalled and contested the suit. A crucial circumstance urged by the defendant was that the suit had become infructuous because the plaintiff had received rents after the termination of tenancy and during the pendency of the suit. It was not in dispute that the defendant paid rents and the plaintiff received them up to date, even as of the hearing of the appeal. The defendant contended that by virtue of such receipt of rents, the plaintiff had waived the notice to quit, and the suit for ejectment based on such notice was no longer maintainable. The trial court negated this contention based on a Supreme Court judgment that did not consider earlier larger bench decisions. The High Court, hearing the appeal, framed the issue of whether the receipt of rent after termination constitutes waiver of notice to quit. The court noted that the defendant had paid rents and the plaintiff had received them after the notice and during the suit. The court held that such receipt of rent amounts to waiver of the notice to quit under Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the suit for ejectment based on such notice is not maintainable. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, and dismissed the suit. The court also directed that the defendant shall continue to pay rent as per the lease terms and the plaintiff shall receive the same, without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to seek ejectment on fresh grounds.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Waiver of Notice to Quit - Section 113 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Receipt of Rent After Termination - The defendant-tenant contended that the plaintiff-landlord's acceptance of rent after the notice to quit and during the pendency of the suit constituted waiver of the notice. The trial court negated this contention relying on a Supreme Court judgment that did not consider earlier larger bench decisions. The High Court held that the receipt of rent by the landlord after termination of tenancy and during the suit amounts to waiver of the notice to quit under Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the suit for ejectment based on such notice is not maintainable. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the receipt of rent by the landlord after termination of tenancy and during pendency of the suit for ejectment amounts to waiver of the notice to quit, thereby rendering the suit for ejectment not maintainable.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 6.11.2014 passed in O.S.No.4950/2009 by the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, are set aside. The suit is dismissed. The defendant shall continue to pay rent as per the lease terms and the plaintiff shall receive the same, without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to seek ejectment on fresh grounds.
Law Points
- Waiver of notice to quit
- Receipt of rent after termination
- Section 113 Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- Ejectment suit maintainability
- Lease renewal
