Case: Praduman Kumar Vs. Virendra Goyal (Dead) By L. Rs

. 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 plaintiffs 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. . . . . 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.The second appeal against this decision was summarily dismissed by the High Court of Allahabad.

Court's reasoning:
6. In our view, there is no substance in any of the contentions.We do not think that there is any bar to the exercise of jurisdiction by the appellate court merely because in the Court of First Instance relief against forfeiture was claimed by the tenants and they failed to avail themselves of the opportunity of paying the amount of rent together with interest thereon and costs of the suit.Failure to avail themselves of the opportunity does not operate as a bar to the jurisdiction of the appellate Court. The Appellate Court may, having regard to the conduct of the tenant, decline to exercise its discretion to grant him relief against forfeiture. The question is not one of jurisdiction but of discretion.The District Court has observed that valuable constructions had been put upon the land leased and the tenants had deposited an amount very much larger than the amount due to the landlord. Having regard to the circumstances the District Court was of the view that discretion should be exercised in favour of the tenants.The High Court summarily dismissed the appeal. The High Court must be taken to have confirmed the view of the District Court. In the appeal with special leave, this Court will not ordinarily interfere with an order made in exercise of the discretion of the Courts below specially when there is no evidence that the tenants were guilty of conduct disentitling them to relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent.