Shah, J. - (1.) Under a deed dated October 28, 1949, Virendra Goyal, the first respondent herein, obtained permanent tenancy rights in 28 plots of land of the ownership of Lala Praduman Kumar. The tenant agreed to pay Rs. 250 per annum as advance rent on the first day of January of each year, and in default of payment of rent for two consecutive years the tenancy rights were to stand forfeited. Goyal transferred his tenancy rights to Lala Hukam Chand. Pursuant to the lease several tenements were raised on the land demised.
(2.) The tenant failed to pay the rent accrued due for two years. The appellant then served a notice on January 4, 1960, terminating the tenancy and instituted an action in the Court of the City Munsiff, Saharanpur, against Virendra Goyal and Lala Hukam Chand for a decree in ejectment and for and order for payment of Rs. 545/11/- as rent and compensation.
(3.) Several contentions were raised in their written statement by the defendants one of which alone is material. The tenants prayed that they should be given relief against forfeiture of their tenancy rights under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the Trial Court the tenants deposited an amount of Rs. 1,09934. The Trial Judge held that the conditions relating to deposit in Court of rent in arrear, interest thereon, and costs of the suit were not complied with and decreed the plaintiff's claim. In appeal to the District Court the tenant offered to pay the balance of the amount of the rent due together with costs of the suit and appeal and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum or such other rate as the Court may direct and deposit in Court Rs. 2,082-50 in the aggregate. The learned District Judge was of the view that the amount paid by the tenants was in excess of the amount due by them and observed: ". . . . . . the appellants have deposited, much more amount than is due to the respondent as arrears of rent, the costs of the suit and of the appeal and the interest. There is no reason why benefit of section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act be not given to the appellants when they are ready and willing to pay much more amount than is actually due to the respondent. The fact is that there are valuable constructions over the plots and defendants' dispossession would put them to a great loss. It is for this reason that they are prepared to pay the amount that may be demanded from them. I, therefore, find that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Section l14 of the Transfer of Property Act and are relieved against the forfeiture." ;