Mere Acceptance Of Rent By Landlord After The Expiry Of Lease Would Not Amount To Waiver Of Termination Of Lease: Supreme Court

Read Judgment 

The Supreme Court reiterated that mere acceptance of the rent by the landlord after the expiry of the period of lease would not amount to waiver of the termination of lease.

In a suit for eviction filed by a landlord, the tenant took a contention that there was no valid termination of tenancy as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Accepting this contention, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Allowing the revision petition filed by the plaintiff-landlord under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, the Karnataka High Court held that in view of Section 111(a) of the Act, the lease would determine by the efflux of time and under such circumstances notice of termination under Section 106 of the Act was not required. Referring to Shanti Prasad Devi & Anr. Vs. Shankar Mahto & Ors. reported in AIR 2005 SC 2905 = (2005) 5 SCC 543, the High Court held that mere acceptance of the landlord after the expiry of the period of lease would not amount to waiver of the termination of lease. Therefore, the defendant, approached the Apex Court by filing a Special Leave Petition.

The Apex Court bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia , referring to evidence on record, noted that the parties have agreed to go by the provisions of the TP Act and thus the lease could be taken as lease for a period of eleven months.

"In view of the evidence thus obtained and taking into account the decision in Shanti Prasad Devi's case (supra) the High Court held that mere acceptance of the rent by the landlord after the expiry of the period of lease would not amount to waiver of the termination of lease. Relying on a Division Bench decision of the High Court in M.C. Mohammed Vs. Smt. Gowramma (AIR 2007 KAR 46) rendered relying on the decision in Pooran Chand Vs. Motilal & Ors. (AIR 1964 SC 461), held that on expiry of the term fixed under the deed the tenant would not be entitled to statutory notice under Section 106 of the TP Act. It was found that on determination of the lease by efflux of time no further termination of the tenancy by issuing a statutory notice to bring termination of a lease already terminated is necessary.", the court observed.

Dismissing the SLP, the bench held that the judgment and decree of the Civil Court was not 'according to law,' and therefore the High Court was certainly within its rights to set aside the decree in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.