A.K. Yog, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties at length as well as perused the writ petition, supplementary -affidavit, counter -affidavit in reply to the petition and supplementary -affidavit and the rejoinder -affidavit in reply thereto.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner made three fold submissions : namely, first the tenant was entitled to the benefit of Section 114, Transfer of Property Act and no decree of eviction can be passed and to this extent. Judge Small Cause Court and Revisional Court under Provincial Small Cause Court Act have acted erroneously. Section 114, Transfer of Property Act reads : "Where a lease of Immovable property has been determined by forfeiture for non -payment of rent, and the lessor sues to eject the lessee, if, at the hearing of the suit, the lessee pays or tenders to the lessor the rent in arrears, together with interest thereon and his full costs of the suit, or gives such security as the Court thinks sufficient for making such payment within fifteen days, the Court may, in lieu of making a decree for ejectment,' pass an order relieving the lessee against the forfeiture, and thereupon the lessee shall hold the property leased as if the forfeiture had not occurred." The said Section refers to Section 111(g) which starts with the word "by forfeiture....." Section 114, Transfer of Properly Act quoted above, gave an option to a tenant to make deposits contemplated therein within the prescribed period mentioned in the Section. In the case of forfeiture only the expression, used in the said Section 114. Transfer of Property Act "whether a lease of immovable property has been determined by forfeiture....." leaves no doubt that right of lessee to avoid suit for ejectment can be resorted to only in a case where a lease of immovable property determines by forfeiture and not otherwise. Consequently, defendant -petitioner cannot take advantage of the aforesaid Section 114, Transfer of Property Act in a case where lease of a transferee determine only Itself or to quit the property leased, duly given by one party to the other ; as contemplated under Section 111(h) of Transfer of Property Act.
(3.) SECOND submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the tenancy of the defendant -petitioner could not be determined or brought to an end in view of the relevant clauses contained in the agreement deed dated 1.8.1992/ Annexure -1 to the petitioner, inasmuch as, it contemplated a clause giving option to the tenant to review the lease after every three years.;