Relief Against Forfeiture Under S. 114-a Tpa Should Not Be Granted Unless the Breach Is Reasonably Capable of Remedy and the Tenant Has Acted in Good Faith

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 127
  • Published : December 15, 2012
Open Document
Text Preview
Theses on the Topic
Relief against forfeiture under S. 114-A TPA should not be granted unless the breach is reasonably capable of remedy and the tenant has acted in good faith

Table of Contents
I List of Cases and Statutory Provisions
1. What Is Relief From Forfeiture?
2. Features Of Section 114A: ‘Breach Capable Of Remedy’ & ‘Within A Reasonable Time’ 2.1 The Section
2.2 Object Of The Section
2.2.3 Brief History Of Evolvement Of The Section: Focus On The Object 2.3 Relief In A Different Sense
3. Factors Which Are Relevant To The Grant Of Relief From Forfeiture Due To Breach Of Covenant Unless It Is Reasonably Capable Of Remedy And Tenant Has Acted In Good Faith Questions That The Court Considers Before Granting Such Relief 3.1 WHETHER BREACH IS REMEDIABLE OR IRREMEDIABLE

3.1.1 Which breaches are and which breaches are not capable of remedy?
3.1.2 Approach: Technical Or Practical
3.1.3 Reasonable Time
3.1.4 Specific Circumstances
A) Lessee Convicted Of An Offence
B) Immoral Conduct
C) Breach Of Covenant In The Same Scheme Of Sale Agreement 3.2 TENANT’S CONDUCT
Wilful Breach
3.3 COURT’S DISCRETION
3.3.1 Satisfaction Of The Court
3.3.2 Equitable Relief Against Forfeiture Of A Lease Incurred By Breach Of Covenant 3.4 EQUITABLE BALANCE
3.4.1 Relative Effect Of The Remedy On Both Parties
3.4.2 Importance Of Considering The Conditions Before Granting The Relief Because It Takes More Time For Lessor To Forfeit In Case Of 114A 4. What Changes Are Wanted?
5. Conclusion

Table of Cases

1. Akici v LR Butling Ltd [2006] 1 WLR 201
2. Smt. Charusila Dassi v. Madan Theatres Ltd. and Ors. AIR 1953 Cal. 536. 3. Egerton v Esplanade Hotels London Ltd [1947] 2 All ER 88. 4. Expert Clothing Service and Sales Ltd v Hillgate House Ltd [1986] Ch 340, CA 5. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation v Shri Chandra Prakash Bubna and Ors. 1992 (1) Pat LJR 365 6. Mrs. Margaret Jean Massy Westmorland Wood v Colonel Granville Alric Richard Spain (1952) 2 MLJ 758 7. Pravat Chandra Syam v Bengal Central Bank Ltd. 1 I.L.R 1938 2 Cal 434 8. Raja Sri Krishna Chandra Manasingh Harichandan Mardaraj Bhramarbar Roy and Anr. v National Chemical & Salt Works Ltd AIR 1957 Ori. 35. 9. Rakay v MacFarlane [1961] NSWR 1121.

10. Shiloh Spinners Ltd v Harding [1973] AC 691, HL

Statutes Referred
1. The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
2. Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956
3. The Law Of Property Act, 1925 (England)

“Relief against forfeiture under S. 114-A TPA should not be granted unless the breach is reasonably capable of remedy and the tenant has acted in good faith.”  1. What Is Relief from Forfeiture
Relief from forfeiture arises where a tenant’s breach of lease exposes it to a landlord’s entitlement to re enter. It is the relief asked for by the lessee to continue the lease when there is a breach of any covenant of lease and lessor can re enter on breach of that covenant. Relief against forfeiture is an equitable remedy. An opportunity to remedy the breach should first be given before forfeiture where a breach resulting in forfeiture of lease is remediable. 2. Features of Section 114A: ‘breach capable of remedy’ & ‘within a reasonable time’

114A. Relief against forfeiture in certain other cases.- Where a lease of immoveable property has determined by forfeiture for a breach of an express condition which provides that on breach thereof the lessor may re- enter, no suit for ejectment shall lie unless and until the lessor has served on the lessee a notice in writing-- (a) specifying the particular breach complained of; and

(b) if the breach is capable of remedy, requiring the lessee to remedy the breach; and the lessee fails, within a reasonable time from the date of the service of the notice, to remedy the breach, if it is capable of remedy. Nothing in this section shall apply to an express...
tracking img