Skip to content


Damoda Coal Company Limited Vs. Hurmook Marwari - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in31Ind.Cas.697
AppellantDamoda Coal Company Limited
RespondentHurmook Marwari
Excerpt:
transfer of property act (iv of 1882), sections 108(e), 106 - destruction of leasehold property by fire of other irresistible force--notice to avoid lease, operation of--time, if necessary. - .....that the property wad been destroyed by fire or other irresistible force, and that they had by notice avoided the lease. the learned judge of the lower appellate court made findings of fact that are in favour of the defendants. he, however, found that the notice purporting to avoid the lease did not satisfy the terms of section 106 of the transfer of property act and that, therefore, the lease had not been validly determined.2. the learned judge was obviously in error in the view he took. the notice under section 106 has nothing to do with the notice to avoid a lease under section 108(e) of the transfer of property act. the notice avoiding a lease under section 108(e) does not require any length of time for its operation. the lease becomes ipso facto void when the lessee serves the.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal from a Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, dated the 17th August 1912, reversing the decision of the Munsif. The suit was brought to recover rent due on a lease. The defence was that the lease had come to an end. The lease was a lease of a colliery and the defendants alleged that the property Wad been destroyed by fire or other irresistible force, and that they had by notice avoided the lease. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court made findings of fact that are in favour of the defendants. He, however, found that the notice purporting to avoid the lease did not satisfy the terms of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and that, therefore, the lease had not been validly determined.

2. The learned Judge was obviously in error in the view he took. The notice under Section 106 has nothing to do with the notice to avoid a lease under Section 108(e) of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice avoiding a lease under Section 108(e) does not require any length of time for its operation. The lease becomes ipso facto void when the lessee serves the notice under Section 108(e), whereas fifteen days' notice is required under Section 106. The learned Judge has fallen into an error by applying the provisions of Section 106 to the notice in the present case. This notice did not require any time to take effect and it operated to avoid the lease immediately on its service. That being the case, the judgment of the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court is wrong. We must, therefore, set aside his judgment and decree and restore the judgment and decree of the Munsif. The respondent must pay to the Appellants their costs, not only in this Court but also in the Courts below.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //