CHAPTER V OF LEASES OF IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY · A.—Rights and liabilities of the lessor. B.—Rights and liabilities of the lessee

Section 114A: Relief against forfeiture in certain other cases

The Transfer of Property Act, 1882

¹[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 condition against the assigning, under-letting, parting with the possession, or disposing, of the property leased, or to an express condition relating to forfeiture in case of non-payment of rent.]

Footnotes in the official text

1.Ins. by s. 58, ibid.

Questions on this section

1 question in 6 of our papers cite Section 114A. Try these from the free papers:

1. Consider the following statements under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: 1. Where a lease has determined by forfeiture for breach of an express condition giving a right of re-entry, no suit for ejectment lies until the lessor serves a written notice specifying the breach and, if it is capable of remedy, requiring the lessee to remedy it. 2. The notice under Section 114A is required even where the breach is of an express condition against sub-letting. 3. Forfeiture of a lease annuls the under-leases granted by the lessee, except where it was procured by the lessor in fraud of the under-lessees or relief is granted under Section 114. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Practise questions on Transfer of Property Act